Socioeconomic Study

Final ReportOctober 19, 2001 as revised April 18, 2003 for

Broward County

Palm Beach County

Miami-Dade County

Monroe County

Florida Fish and WildlifeConservation Commission

National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration


Broward County

Palm Beach County

Miami-Dade County

Monroe County



Principal Investigators:

Grace M. Johns, Ph.D., Project ManagerVernon R. Leeworthy, Ph.D.Frederick W. Bell, Ph.D.Mark A. Bonn, Ph.D.


Grace M. Johns, Ph.D., Project ManagerVernon R. Leeworthy, Ph.D.Frederick W. Bell, Ph.D.Mark A. Bonn, Ph.D. In association with

ocioeconomic StudySocioeconomic StudySFloridaFlorida

of Reefs in Southeastof Reefs in Southeast

ocioeconomic StudySFlorida

of Reefs in Southeast

In association with


Grace M. Johns, Ph.D., Project ManagerVernon R. Leeworthy, Ph.D.Frederick W. Bell, Ph.D.Mark A. Bonn, Ph.D.


Broward County

Palm Beach County

Miami-Dade County

Monroe County



Hwd:40289L055.doc

April 18, 2003 Ms. Pamela Fletcher Natural Resource Specialist II BROWARD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 218 Southwest 1st Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in

Southeast Florida – Final Report Dear Ms. Fletcher: We are pleased to submit ten bound and one unbound copies of the final report for the Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida, dated October 19, 2001, as revised April 18, 2003. This report is the product of a significant survey research effort and analysis of the uses and values of the artificial and natural reefs in southeast Florida. This project’s success was directly attributable to the assistance and support of many individuals involved in this 20-month long effort. The study provides estimates of the following values that represent the time period June 2000 to May 2001:

§ Total reef use of residents and visitors in each of the four counties as measured in terms of person-days.

§ Economic contribution of the natural and artificial reefs as residents and visitors spend money in each of the four counties to participate in reef-related recreation.

§ Willingness of reef users to pay to maintain the natural and artificial reefs of southeast Florida in their existing conditions.

§ Willingness of reef users to pay for additional artificial reefs in southeast Florida.

§ Socioeconomic characteristics of reef users.

Economic contribution is measured by total sales, income, and employment generated within each county from residents and visitors who use the reefs. In addition, the opinions of residents regarding the existence or establishment of “no-take” zones as a tool to protect existing artificial and natural reefs are presented.

We thank you, Pamela Fletcher, for your consistent support and guidance during this project. We know you spent significant effort in making sure this project was a success. We have enjoyed working with the funding agencies and you and your staff at Broward County. Very truly yours, HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. Grace M. Johns, Ph.D. Senior Associate Economist and Project Manager Enclosures c: File 40289

Ms. Pamela Fletcher April 18, 2003

Page 2 of 2 Hwd:40289L055.doc

NOTE: This document is revised from the original October 19, 2001 report. The number of person-days that residents in Monroe County used the Monroe County reefs was increased by 11.5 percent or 0.35 million person-days to correct an error found in the model files. As a result, the following percent increases in values occurred and are included in this revised report. Resident economic contribution and user values in Monroe County increased by 11.5 percent. Total reef use in Monroe County and the corresponding the economic contribution and user values increased by 7 percent. Total reef use in all four counties and the corresponding economic contribution and user values increased by 1.2 percent.

Hwd:40289R038.doc A-1 Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida Final Report

Acknowledgements Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida, 2000-2001

This project’s success was directly attributable to the assistance and support of all those individuals involved in this 20-month long effort.

Funding for this project was provided by the four counties; the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The representatives of these agencies were key to the success of this project. They solicited the funding for this project and assisted in obtaining site permissions for the visitor intercept surveys. They are Jon Dodrill, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; Vernon (Bob) Leeworthy, Ph.D., NOAA; Julie Bishop, Palm Beach County; Pamela Fletcher and Ken Banks, Broward County; Brian Flynn, Miami-Dade County; and George Garrett and Julie Malko, Monroe County. Danah Kozma and Linda MacMinn of the Monroe County Tourist Development Council obtained the site permissions to conduct the visitor intercept interviews in the Florida Keys.

The principal investigators and their responsibilities included Grace Johns, Ph.D. of Hazen and Sawyer who served as project manager; Professors Fred Bell and Mark Bonn of Florida State University who were responsible for the resident surveys and resident data analysis; Vernon (Bob) Leeworthy, Ph.D. of NOAA who designed the draft surveys, conducted the statistical analysis of reef user values and assisted with report writing; and J. Walter Milon, Ph.D. who reviewed and edited the draft surveys and provided valuable guidance.

We wish to thank our survey researchers who worked with energy and in earnest, often in the hot sun, to conduct the visitor intercept interviews in southeast Florida. Without these organizations and individuals, the study of visitor reef users to southeast Florida would not have been possible. The survey researchers included members of the Bicentennial Volunteers – E.P. and Rosa Kirk; Jay and Linda Parsons; John and Martha Autry; Jon and Kathy Sweet; Bennie and Becky Miller; Robert and Betty Shirley; Peter and Betty Germann; George and Maxine Haynes; J.W. & Bobbie Thomasson; Wendell and Margaret Thomasson; and Glenn and Delores Tankersley. We also thank Rife Market Research and their survey researchers who provided valuable survey research assistance at short notice during the summer survey.

Dave Sayers of Hazen and Sawyer assisted in managing the survey researchers, the completed surveys, and the data entry for the visitor surveys. Carole Blood of Hazen and Sawyer produced the thousands of mailings to site owners and charter boat operators, with assistance from Danielle Monzione, and formatted this report. William Taylor, Chris Julien and Jeff Jones of Hazen and Sawyer produced the thousands of visuals and documents for this study. Hazen and Sawyer’s data entry staff diligently entered the responses to over 6,000 visitor surveys: Abe Kuruvilla; Andrea Stonom; Jabrina Howard; and Jesse Van Eyk.

With respect to the resident survey, Patricia Fountain of Florida State University supervised the telephone and mail survey data collection. She spent countless hours training and supervising numerous employees needed for this task. Monique Jenkins and Jamie White also deserve

Acknowledgements

Hwd:40289R038.doc A-2 Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida Final Report

recognition for their part in the data entry process. Of special note, Dr. Robert Bosselman, Chair and Director of the Dedman School of Hospitality at Florida State University deserves recognition for providing the physical plant and necessary research equipment to perform such a large project. He provided the CADDI system, computers, telephone lines and research laboratories for use on this project. Brian London of FSU was persistent and outstanding when it came to all details in managing the SPSS data base. Betty Brown of FSU’s computer services assisted in preparing the boat registration tapes for the use of Dr. Dagang Wang who provided a random sample of registered boat owners from the four county area with matching phone numbers. Fran Loeb of the FSU Economics Department is commended for all her budget and personnel work connected with this project. Karen Wells organized the final manuscript of the resident analysis after Dr. Bell pounded out a draft copy.

Of special note, Pamela Fletcher of Broward County provided consistent support and guidance during this project. She spent significant effort in making sure this project was a success.

Hwd:40289R036.doc TOC-1 Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida Final Report

Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida

Final Report

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

Chapter 1 - Introduction 1.1 Project Objectives ........................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Summaries, Modeling, and Statistical Evaluation.......................... 1-7 1.3 Report Organization...................................................................... 1-10

Chapter 2 - Socioeconomic Values of Reefs in Southeast Florida 2.1 Residents ......................................................................................... 2-2

2.1.1 User Activity - Residents ................................................. 2-2 2.1.2 Economic Contribution.................................................... 2-8 2.1.3 Use Value ....................................................................... 2-12 2.1.4 Role of “No-Take” Zones .............................................. 2-18 2.1.5 Demographic Information.............................................. 2-20

2.2 Visitors.......................................................................................... 2-23 2.2.1 User Activity.................................................................. 2-24 2.2.2 Economic Contribution – Visitors ................................. 2-38 2.2.3 Use Value ....................................................................... 2-49 2.2.4 Demographic Information.............................................. 2-56

2.3 Total – Residents and Visitors ...................................................... 2-56 2.3.1 User Activity.................................................................. 2-56 2.3.2 Economic Contribution.................................................. 2-58 2.3.3 Use Value ....................................................................... 2-65 2.3.4 Demographic Information.............................................. 2-69

Chapter 3 - Socioeconomic Value of Reefs in Palm Beach County 3.1 Residents ......................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 User Activity.................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Economic Contribution.................................................... 3-3 3.1.3 Use Value ....................................................................... 3-11 3.1.4 Role of “No-Take” Zones .............................................. 3-15 3.1.5 Demographic Information.............................................. 3-17

Table of Contents




Chapter 4 - Socioeconomic Values of Reefs in Broward County 4.1 Residents ......................................................................................... 4-1




Chapter 5 - Socioeconomic Value of Reefs in Miami-Dade County 5.1 Residents ......................................................................................... 5-1



5.3 Total – Residents and Visitors ...................................................... 5-35 5.3.1 User Activity.................................................................. 5-35 5.3.2 Economic Contribution.................................................. 5-36

Table of Contents


5.3.3 Use Value ....................................................................... 5-38 5.3.4 Demographic Information.............................................. 5-40

Chapter 6 - Socioeconomic Values of Reefs in Monroe County 6.1 Residents ......................................................................................... 6-1




Bibliography

Technical Appendix Separate Report

Tables ES-1 Number of Person-Days Spent on Artificial and Natural

Reefs in Southeast Florida Residents and Visitors by County June 2000 to May 2001 .................................................ES-3

ES-2 Number of Person-Days Spent on All Reefs Comparison of Visitor Versus Resident Use in Southeast Florida June 2000 to May 2001 ..............................................................ES-4

ES-3 Number of Person-Days on All Reefs by Recreational Activity June 2000 to May 2001 – Residents and Visitors (in millions)................................................................................ES-4

ES-4 Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Expenditures to Each County June 2000 to May 2001 – Residents and Visitors .......................................................................................ES-5

ES-5 Annual Use Value From June 2000 to May 2001 and Capitalized Value associated With Reef Use Southeast Florida – Residents and Visitors ................................................ES-7

ES-6 Estimated Use Value of Investing in and Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs Southeast Florida – Residents and Visitors ................................................................................ES-9

Table of Contents


ES-7 A Summary of the Opinion of Resident Reef-Users on "No Take" Zones in Southeast Florida, 2000...........................ES-11

ES-8 Demographic Characteristics of Resident and Visitor Reef-Users in Southeast Florida, 2000.....................................ES-12

ES-9 Boater Profile of Resident and Visitor Reef-Users in Southeast Florida, 2000............................................................ES-13

1.2-1 Number of Surveys Mailed to Resident Boaters by County........ 1-4 1.2-2 Summary of Resident Boater Survey Success ............................. 1-4 1.2-3 Survey Research Level of Effort Summer Survey Period............ 1-5 1.2-4 Survey Research Level of Effort Winter Survey Period

February 22 to April 12, 2001 ...................................................... 1-6 1.2-5 General Visitor Survey Tally Number of Completed Surveys .... 1-6 1.2-6 Visitor Boater Survey Tally Number of Completed Surveys ...... 1-6 1.2-7 Percent of Recreational Fishing Passenger Days Spent on

Artificial and Natural Reefs From Charter/Party Boat Survey.... 1-7 2.1.1-1 (Residents) A Summary of Resident Boater User Activity on

Artificial and Natural Reefs in Southeast Florida, 2000 .............. 2-5 2.1.1-2 (Residents) Party-Days by Activity for All Counties................... 2-6 2.1.1-3 (Residents) Summary of the Kinds of Recreational Activities

on Reefs in Southeastern Florida, 2000 ....................................... 2-7 2.1.2-1 (Residents) A Summary of the Economic Contribution of

Reef-Related Recreational Activities by County in Southeast Florida, 2000 ................................................................................ 2-9

2.1.2-2 (Residents) A Summary of Estimated Expenditures by Reef-Related Recreational Activity By Residents Off the Southeast Coast of Florida, 2000 ............................................... 2-10

2.1.2-3 A Summary of the Economic Contribution by Expenditure Category for Reef Related Recreational Activities for Southeast Florida, 2000.............................................................. 2-11

2.1.3-1 (Residents) Annual Use Value and Capitalized Value Associated with Resident Reef Use in Southeast Florida, 2000 .............................................................................. 2-15

2.1.3-2 (Residents).................................................................................. 2-16 2.1.3-3 (Residents) Estimated Resident Use Value of Investing in

and Maintaining “New” Artificial Reefs.................................... 2-17 2.1.4-1 (Residents) A Summary of the Opinion of Resident Reef-

Users on "No Take" Zones in Southeast Florida, 2000.............. 2-19 2.1.5-1 (Residents) A Summary of the Demographic

Characteristics of Reef-Users in Southeast Florida, 2000.......... 2-22 2.1.5-2 (Residents) Boater Profile of Reef-Users in Southeast

Florida, 2000 .............................................................................. 2-23

Table of Contents


2.2.1-1 (Visitors) Results of Capacity Utilization Model Calculation of Number of Person-Trips to County Summer Season (June 2000 to November 2000) .................................................. 2-25

2.2.1-2 (Visitors) Results of Capacity Utilization Model Calculation of Number of Person-Trips to County Winter Season (December 2000 to May 2001) .................................................. 2-26

2.2.1-3 (Visitors) Number of Person-Trips to Each County All Visitors June 2000 to May 2001 ................................................ 2-27

2.2.1-4 (Visitors) Proportion of General Visitor Respondents Surveyed by Accommodation.................................................... 2-27

2.2.1-5 (Visitors) Average Number of Days Per Trip by Accommodation General Visitor Survey................................... 2-28

2.2.1-6 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Spent in Each County All Visitors June 2000 to May 2001 .......................................... 2-28

2.2.1-7 (Visitors) Person-Trips of Visitors Who Boated and Visitors Who Used the Reefs Over the Past 12 Months Summer 2000... 2-29

2.2.1-8 (Visitors) Person-Trips of Visitors Who Boated and Visitors Who Used the Reefs Over the Past 12 Months Winter 2001 ..... 2-29

2.2.1-9 (Visitors) Person-Trips of Visitors Who Boated and Visitors Who Used the Reefs Over the Past 12 Months June 2000 to May 2001.................................................................................... 2-30

2.2.1-10 (Visitors) Average Number of Days Visiting County and Total Person-Days in County By Visitor Boaters Who Used the Reefs ..................................................................................... 2-30

2.2.1-11 (Visitors) Percent of Visitor Person-Days That Reef-Using Boaters Went Saltwater Fishing and Percent of Fishing Days Spent on Artificial, Natural and No Reefs From Visitor Boater Survey................................................................. 2-31

2.2.1-12 (Visitors) Percent of Visitor Person-Days That Reef-Using Boaters Went Scuba Diving or Snorkeling and Percent of Diving/Snorkeling Dives Spent on Artificial, Natural and No Reefs From Visitor Boater Survey....................................... 2-32

2.2.1-13 (Visitors) Total Person-Days Visitors Spent on Artificial and Natural Reefs by County June 2000 to May 2001 (Millions).... 2-32

2.2.1-14 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Spent Using Artificial and Natural Reefs By Recreation Activity – Palm Beach County.... 2-33

2.2.1-15 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Spent Using Artificial and Natural Reefs By Recreation Activity – Broward County......... 2-33

2.2.1-16 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Spent Using Artificial and Natural Reefs By Recreation Activity – Miami-Dade County .. 2-33

2.2.1-17 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Spent Using Artificial and Natural Reefs By Recreation Activity – Monroe County.......... 2-33

Table of Contents


2.2.1-18 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Visitors Spent Participating in Saltwater Boating Activities and Reef Use - June 2000 to May 2001 Palm Beach County................................................... 2-34

2.2.1-19 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Visitors Spent Participating in Saltwater Boating Activities and Reef Use - June 2000 to May 2001 Broward County........................................................ 2-35

2.2.1-20 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Visitors Spent Participating in Saltwater Boating Activities and Reef Use - June 2000 to May 2001 Miami-Dade County ................................................. 2-36

2.2.1-21 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Visitors Spent Participating in Saltwater Boating Activities and Reef Use - June 2000 to May 2001 Monroe County (Florida Keys)................................. 2-37

2.2.2-1 (Visitors) Amount of Money Spent in County Per Person During Most Recent Day Participating in Each Reef-Related Activity and Boating Mode Palm Beach County From Visitor Boater Survey Responses – 2000 Dollars .................................. 2-39

2.2.2-2 (Visitors) Amount of Money Spent in County Per Person During Most Recent Day Participating in Each Reef-Related Activity and Boating Mode Broward County From Visitor Boater Survey Responses – 2000 Dollars .................................. 2-40

2.2.2-3 (Visitors) Amount of Money Spent in County Per Person During Most Recent Day Participating in Each Reef-Related Activity and Boating Mode Miami-Dade County From Visitor Boater Survey Responses – 2000 Dollars ...................... 2-41

2.2.2-4 (Visitors) Amount of Money Spent in County Per Person During Most Recent Day Participating in Each Reef-Related Activity and Boating Mode Monroe County From Visitor Boater Survey Responses – 2000 Dollars .................................. 2-42

2.2.2-5 (Visitors) Total Visitor Expenditures In Palm Beach County Associated with Reef Use All Reef-Related Activities and Boating Modes June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars ........ 2-43

2.2.2-6 (Visitors) Total Visitor Expenditures In Broward County Associated with Reef Use All Reef-Related Activities and Boating Modes June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars ........ 2-44

2.2.2-7 (Visitors) Total Visitor Expenditures In Miami-Dade County Associated with Reef Use All Reef-Related Activities and Boating Modes June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars ........ 2-45

2.2.2-8 (Visitors) Total Visitor Expenditures In Monroe County Associated with Reef Use All Reef-Related Activities and Boating Modes June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars ........ 2-46

Table of Contents


2.2.2-9 (Visitors) Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Expenditures by Visitors to Palm Beach County Economic Area is Palm Beach County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars............................................................................ 2-48

2.2.2-10 (Visitors) Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Expenditures by Visitors to Broward County Economic Area is Broward County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars............................................................................ 2-48

2.2.2-11 (Visitors) Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Expenditures by Visitors to Miami-Dade County Economic Area is Miami-Dade County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars............................................................................ 2-49

2.2.2-12 (Visitors) Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Expenditures by Visitors to Monroe County Economic Area is Monroe County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars.... 2-49

2.2.3-1 (Visitors) Annual Use Value From June 2000 to May 2001 and Capitalized Value associated With Reef Use Visitor Reef-Users by County................................................................ 2-54

2.2.3-2 (Visitors) Estimated Use Value of Investing in and Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs Visitor Reef-Users by County................................................................................... 2-55

2.2.4-1 (Visitors) Demographic Characteristics of Visitor Reef-Users in Southeast Florida, 2000....................................... 2-56

2.3.1-1 Number of Person-Days Spent on Artificial and Natural Reefs in Southeast Florida Residents and Visitors By County (in millions) ................................................................... 2-57

2.3.1-2 Number of Person-Days Spent Using Reefs in Southeast Florida By Recreational Activity Residents and Visitors By County (in millions).............................................................. 2-58

2.3.2-1 Economic Contribution of Artificial Reef-Related Expenditures to Each County Contribution to Sales June 2000 to May 2001 – In Millions of 2000 dollars............... 2-60

2.3.2-2 Economic Contribution of Natural Reef-Related Expenditures to Each County Contribution to Sales June 2000 to May 2001 – In Millions of 2000 dollars .................................... 2-60

2.3.2-3 Economic Contribution of All Reef-Related Expenditures to Each County Contribution to Sales June 2000 to May 2001 – In millions of 2000 dollars ......................................................... 2-61

2.3.2-4 Economic Contribution of Artificial Reef-Related Expenditures to Each County Contribution to Total Income June 2000 to May 2001 – In millions of 2000 dollars ............... 2-61

Table of Contents


2.3.2-5 Economic Contribution of Natural Reef-Related Expenditures to Each County Contribution to Total Income June 2000 to May 2001 – In millions of 2000 dollars................................. 2-62

2.3.2-6 Economic Contribution of All Reef-Related Expenditures to Each County Contribution to Total Income June 2000 to May 2001 – In millions of 2000 dollars ..................................... 2-62

2.3.2-7 Economic Contribution of Artificial Reef-Related Expenditures to Each County Contribution to Employment June 2000 to May 2001 – Number of Full-Time and Part-Time Jobs............................................................................ 2-63

2.3.2-8 Economic Contribution of Natural Reef-Related Expenditures to Each County Contribution to Employment June 2000 to May 2001 – Number of Full-Time and Part-Time Jobs............. 2-63

2.3.2-9 Economic Contribution of All Reef-Related Expenditures to Each County Contribution to Employment June 2000 to May 2001 – Number of Full-Time and Part-Time Jobs............. 2-64

2.3.2-10 Percent of County Income and Employment Tied to Reef Use .2-64 2.3.2-11 Personal Income and Employment by County, 1999 ................. 2-64 2.3.3-1 (Residents and Visitors) Annual Use Value From June 2000

to May 2001 and Capitalized Value associated With Reef Use Southeast Florida ........................................................................ 2-67

2.3.3-2 (Residents and Visitors) Estimated Use Value of Investing in and Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs Southeast Florida ....... 2-68

2.3.4-1 Demographic Characteristics of Resident and Visitor Reef-Users in Southeast Florida, 2000....................................... 2-69

2.3.4-2 Boater Profile of Resident and Visitor Reef-Users in Southeast Florida, 2000.............................................................. 2-70

3.1.1-1 (Residents) Estimated Resident User Activity As Measured

by Party-Days and Person-Days on Artificial and Natural Reefs off Palm Beach County, Florida, 2000............................... 3-4

3.1.2-1 (Residents) Reef-Related Expenditures, Wages and Employment Generated by Resident Boating Activities in Palm Beach County, Florida, 2000 .............................................. 3-9

3.1.2-2 (Residents) Detailed Expenditure Pattern Supporting Employment and Wages by All Resident Reef-Users in Palm Beach County, Florida, 2000 ............................................ 3-10

3.1.3-1 (Residents) Estimated Use Value of Artificial and Natural Reefs off the Coast of Palm Beach County, Florida, 2000 ........ 3-13

3.1.4-1 (Residents) Opinion of Palm Beach County Residents Regarding "No Take" Zones For Artificial and Natural Reefs, 2000 ................................................................................. 3-16

Table of Contents


3.1.5-1 (Residents) Demographic Characteristics and Boater Profile of Reef-Users in Palm Beach County Florida, 2000 .................. 3-18

3.2.1-1 (Visitors) Number of Person-Trips and Person Days All Visitors to Palm Beach County June 2000 to May 2001 ........... 3-20

3.2.1-2 (Visitors) Person-Trips of Visitors Who Boated and Visitors Who Used the Reefs in Palm Beach County Over the Past 12 Months ................................................................................... 3-20

3.2.1-3 (Visitors) Average Number of Days Visiting Palm Beach County and Total Person Days in Palm Beach County by Visitor Boaters Who Used the Reefs June 2000 to May 2001... 3-21

3.2.1-4 (Visitors) Saltwater Recreational Activities from All Boating Modes Percent of Visitor Person-Days That Reef-Using Boaters Participated in the Saltwater Recreation Activity and Percent of Fishing Days or Dives Spent on Artificial, Natural and No Reefs from Visitor Boater Survey Palm Beach County............................................................................. 3-22

3.2.1-5 (Visitors) Number of Visitor Person-Days Spent Using Artificial and Natural Reefs By Recreation Activity – Palm Beach County.................................................................... 3-23

3.2.1-6 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Visitors Spent Participating in Saltwater Boating Activities and Boating Modes and Type of Reef Used - June 2000 to May 2001 Palm Beach County..... 3-24

3.2.2-1 (Visitors) Amount of Money Spent in County Per Person During Most Recent Day Participating in Each Reef-Related Activity and Boating Mode Palm Beach County From Visitor Boater Survey Responses – 2000 Dollars .................................. 3-26

3.2.2-2 (Visitors) Total Visitor Expenditures In Palm Beach County Associated with Reef Use All Reef-Related Activities and Boating Modes June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars ........ 3-27

3.2.2-3 (Visitors) Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Expenditures by Visitors to Palm Beach County Economic Area is Palm Beach County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars............................................................................ 3-28

3.2.3-1 (Visitors) Annual Value of Reefs To Reef Users and Capitalized Value Data Represents June 2000 to May 2001 Visitor Reef-Users in Palm Beach County................................. 3-31

3.2.3-2 (Visitors) Estimated Use Value of Investing in and Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs in the County Visitor Reef-Users in Palm Beach County............................................. 3-32

3.2.3-3 (Visitors) Value of Reefs to Visitors to Palm Beach County, by Reef Type and Activity, 2000-2001...................................... 3-32

3.2.4-1 (Visitors) Demographic Characteristics of Visitor Reef-Users in Palm Beach County, 2000................................... 3-33

Table of Contents


3.3.1-1 Number of Person-Days Spent on Artificial and Natural Reefs in Palm Beach County Residents and Visitors In Millions ........ 3-34

3.3.1-2 Number of Person-Days Spent Using Reefs in Palm Beach County By Recreational Activity Residents and Visitors In Millions ...................................................................................... 3-34

3.3.2-1 Economic Contribution of Artificial Reef-Related Expenditures to Palm Beach County June 2000 to May 2001 – In Millions of 2000 dollars .................................... 3-35

3.3.2-2 Economic Contribution of Natural Reef-Related Expenditures to Palm Beach County June 2000 to May 2001 – In Millions of 2000 dollars............................................................................ 3-36

3.3.2-3 Economic Contribution of All Reef-Related Expenditures to Palm Beach County June 2000 to May 2001 – In Millions of 2000 dollars ............................................................. 3-36

3.3.3-1 Annual Use Value Associated with Protecting Reefs in their Existing Condition and Capitalized Value associated With Reef Use Data Represents June 2000 to May 2001 Palm Beach County, Florida................................................................ 3-37

3.3.3-2 Estimated Value to Reef Users From Investing in and Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs Palm Beach County, Florida ........................................................................................ 3-38

3.3.4-1 Demographic Characteristics of Resident and Visitor Reef-Users in Palm Beach County, 2000................................... 3-39

4.1.1-1 (Residents) Estimated Resident User Activity As Measured

by Party-Days and Person-Days on Artificial and Natural Reefs off Broward County, Florida, 2000.................................... 4-4

4.1.2-1 (Residents) Average Resident Spending per Party by Broward County Reef-Users ........................................................ 4-7

4.1.2-2 (Residents) Reef-Related Expenditures, Wages and Employment Generated by Resident Boating Activities in Broward County, Florida, 2000.................................................... 4-8

4.1.2-3 (Residents) Detailed Expenditure Pattern Supporting Employment and Wages by All Resident Reef-Users in Broward County, Florida, 2000.................................................. 4-11

4.1.3-1 (Residents) Estimated Use Value of Artificial and Natural Reefs off the Coast of Broward County, Florida, 2000 ............. 4-14

4.1.4-1 (Residents) Opinion of Broward County Residents on "No Take" Zones for Artificial and Natural Reefs, 2000........... 4-17

4.1.5-1 (Residents) Demographic Characteristics and Boater Profile of Reef-Users in Broward County Florida, 2000 ....................... 4-18

Table of Contents


4.2.1-1 (Visitors) Number of Person-Trips and Person-Days All Visitors to Broward County June 2000 to May 2001 – in millions ................................................................................... 4-21

4.2.1-2 (Visitors) Person-Trips of Visitors Who Boated and Visitors Who Used the Reefs in Broward County Over the Past 12 Months ........................................................................... 4-21

4.2.1-3 (Visitors) Average Number of Days Visiting Broward County and Total Person-Days in Broward County By Visitor Boaters Who Used the Reefs June 2000 to May 2001... 4-22

4.2.1-4 (Visitors) Percent of Visitor Person-Days That Reef-Using Boaters Participated in the Saltwater Recreation Activity and Percent of Fishing Days or Dives Spent on Artificial, Natural and No Reefs From Visitor Boater Survey Broward County......................................................................... 4-23

4.2.1-5 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Spent Using Artificial and Natural Reefs By Recreation Activity – Broward County.. 4-24

4.2.1-6 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Visitors Spent Participating in Saltwater Boating Activities and Reef Use - June 2000 to May 2001 Broward County .................................. 4-25

4.2.2-1 (Visitors) Amount of Money Spent in County Per Person During Most Recent Day Participating in Each Reef-Related Activity and Boating Mode Broward County From Visitor Boater Survey Responses – 2000 Dollars .................................. 4-27

4.2.2-2 (Visitors) Total Visitor Expenditures In Broward County Associated with Reef Use All Reef-Related Activities and Boating Modes June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars ........ 4-29

4.2.2-3 Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Expenditures by Visitors to Broward County Economic Area is Broward County June 2000 to May 2001 – In Millions of 2000 dollars .. 4-30

4.2.3-1 (Visitors) Annual Value of Reefs To Reef Users and Capitalized Value Data Represents June 2000 to May 2001 Visitor Reef-Users in Broward County...................................... 4-33

4.2.3-2 (Visitors) Value of Reefs to Visitors to Broward County, by Reef Type and Activity, 2000-2001........................................... 4-33

4.2.3-3 (Visitors) Estimated Use Value of Investing in and Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs in the County Visitor Reef-Users in Broward County.................................................. 4-34

4.2.4-1 (Visitors) Demographic Characteristics of Visitor Reef-Users in Broward County, 2000 ........................................ 4-34

4.3.1-1 Number of Person-Days Spent on Artificial and Natural Reefs in Broward County Residents and Visitors – in millions........... 4-35

4.3.1-2 Number of Person-Days Spent Using Reefs in Broward County by Recreational Activity Residents and Visitors – in millions .. 4-35

Table of Contents


4.3.2-1 Economic Contribution of Artificial Reef-Related Expenditures to Broward County June 2000 to May 2001 – In Millions of 2000 dollars......................................................... 4-37

4.3.2-2 Economic Contribution of Natural Reef-Related Expenditures to Broward County June 2000 to May 2001 – In Millions of 2000 dollars......................................................... 4-37

4.3.2-3 Economic Contribution of All Reef-Related Expenditures to Broward County June 2000 to May 2001 – In Millions of 2000 dollars............................................................................ 4-38

4.3.3-1 Annual Use Value Associated with Protecting Reefs in their Existing Condition and Capitalized Value Associated With Reef Use Data Represents June 2000 to May 2001 Broward County, Florida........................................................................... 4-39

4.3.3-2 Estimated Value to Reef Users From Investing in and Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs Broward County, Florida .4-39

4.3.4-1 Demographic Characteristics of Resident and Visitor Reef-Users in Broward County, 2000 ........................................ 4-40

5.1.1-1 (Residents) Estimated Resident User Activity as Measured

by Party-Days and Person-Days on Artificial and Natural Reefs off Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2000 ............................. 5-4

5.1.2-1 (Residents) Reef-Related Expenditures, Wages and Employment Generated by Resident Boating Activities in Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2000 ............................................. 5-8

5.1.2-2 (Residents) Detailed Expenditure Pattern Supporting Employment and Wages by All Resident Reef-Users in Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2000 ........................................... 5-10

5.1.3-1 (Residents) Estimated Use Value of Artificial and Natural Reefs off the Coast of Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2000 ....... 5-14

5.1.4-1 (Residents) Opinion of Miami-Dade County Residents on "No Take" Zones for Artificial and Natural Reefs, 2000........... 5-17

5.1.5-1 (Residents) Demographic Characteristics and Boater Profile of Reef-Users in Miami-Dade County Florida, 2000................. 5-19

5.2.1-1 (Visitors) Number of Person-Trips and Person-Days All Visitors to Miami-Dade County June 2000 to May 2001 – in millions ................................................................................... 5-21

5.2.1-2 (Visitors) Person-Trips of Visitors Who Boated and Visitors Who Used the Reefs in Miami-Dade County Over the Past 12 Months ................................................................................... 5-22

5.2.1-3 (Visitors) Average Number of Days Visiting Miami-Dade County and Total Person-Days in Miami-Dade County By Visitor Boaters Who Used the Reefs June 2000 to May 2001... 5-23

Table of Contents


5.2.1-4 (Visitors) Percent of Visitor Person-Days That Reef-Using Boaters Participated in the Saltwater Recreation Activity and Percent of Fishing Days or Dives Spent on Artificial, Natural and No Reefs From Visitor Boater Survey Miami-Dade County................................................................... 5-24

5.2.1-5 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Spent Using Artificial and Natural Reefs By Recreation Activity – Miami-Dade County........................................................................................ 5-25

5.2.1-6 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Visitors Spent Participating in Saltwater Boating Activities and Reef Use - June 2000 to May 2001 Miami-Dade County ................................................. 5-26

5.2.2-1 (Visitors) Amount of Money Spent in County Per Person During Most Recent Day Participating in Each Reef-Related Activity and Boating Mode Miami-Dade County From Visitor Boater Survey Responses – 2000 Dollars ...................... 5-27

5.2.2-2 (Visitors) Total Visitor Expenditures In Miami-Dade County Associated with Reef Use All Reef-Related Activities and Boating Modes June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars ........ 5-29

5.2.2-3 (Visitors) Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Expenditures by Visitors to Miami-Dade County Economic Area is Miami-Dade County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars............................................................................ 5-30

5.2.3-1 (Visitors) Annual Value of Reefs To Reef Users and Capitalized Value Data Represents June 2000 to May 2001 Visitor Reef-Users in Miami-Dade County ............................... 5-33

5.2.3-2 (Visitors) Estimated Use Value of Investing in and Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs in the County Visitor Reef-Users in Miami-Dade County............................................ 5-33

5.2.3-3 (Visitors) Value of Reefs to Visitors to Miami-Dade County, by Reef Type and Activity, 2000-2001...................................... 5-34

5.2.4-1 Demographic Characteristics of Visitor Reef-Users in Miami-Dade County, 2000......................................................... 5-35

5.3.1-1 Number of Person-Days Spent on Artificial and Natural Reefs in Miami-Dade County Residents and Visitors – in millions .... 5-35

5.3.1-2 Number of Person-Days Spent Using Reefs in Miami-Dade County By Recreational Activity Residents and Visitors .......... 5-36

5.3.2-1 Economic Contribution of Artificial Reef-Related Expenditures to Miami-Dade County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars ....................................................... 5-37

5.3.2-2 Economic Contribution of Natural Reef-Related Expenditures to Miami-Dade County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars................................................................ 5-38

Table of Contents


5.3.2-3 Economic Contribution of All Reef-Related Expenditures to Miami-Dade County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars......................................................................................... 5-38

5.3.3-1 Annual Use Value Associated with Protecting Reefs in their Existing Condition and Capitalized Value associated With Reef Use Data Represents June 2000 to May 2001 Miami-Dade County, Florida ..................................................... 5-39

5.3.3-2 Estimated Value to Reef Users From Investing in and Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs Miami-Dade County, Florida ........................................................................................ 5-39

5.3.4-1 Demographic Characteristics of Resident and Visitor Reef-Users In Miami-Dade County, 2000 ................................. 5-40

6.1.1-1 (Residents) Estimated Resident User Activity as Measured

by Party-Days and Person-Days on Artificial and Natural Reefs off Monroe County, Florida, 2000 ..................................... 6-4

6.1.2-1 (Residents) Reef-Related Expenditures, Wages and Employment Generated by Resident Boating Activities in Monroe County, Florida, 2000 ..................................................... 6-8

6.1.2-2 (Residents) Detailed Expenditure Pattern Supporting Employment and Wages by All Resident Reef-Users in Monroe County, Florida, 2000 ................................................... 6-10

6.1.3-1 (Residents) Estimated Use Value of Artificial and Natural Reefs off the Coast of Monroe County, Florida, 2000............... 6-13

6.1.4-1 (Residents) Opinion of Monroe County Residents on "No Take" Zones for Artificial and Natural Reefs, 2000........... 6-17

6.1.5-1 Demographic Characteristics and Boater Profile of Reef-Users in Monroe County Florida, 2000............................. 6-18

6.2.1-1 (Visitors) Number of Person-Trips and Person-Days All Visitors to Monroe County June 2000 to May 2001 – in millions ................................................................................... 6-20

6.2.1-2 (Visitors) Person-Trips of Visitors Who Boated and Visitors Who Used the Reefs in Monroe County Over the Past 12 Months ........................................................................... 6-21

6.2.1-3 (Visitors) Average Number of Days Visiting Monroe County and Total Person Days in Monroe County By Visitor Boaters Who Used the Reefs June 2000 to May 2001 ............... 6-22

6.2.1-4 (Visitors) Saltwater Recreational Activities from All Boating Modes Percent of Visitor Person-Days That Reef-Using Boaters Participated in the Saltwater Recreation Activity and Percent of Fishing Days or Dives Spent on Artificial, Natural and No Reefs From Visitor Boater Survey Monroe County........................................................................................ 6-23

Table of Contents


6.2.1-5 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Spent Using Artificial and Natural Reefs By Recreation Activity – Monroe County ... 6-24

6.2.1-6 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Visitors Spent Participating in Saltwater Boating Activities and Reef Use - June 2000 to May 2001 Monroe County (Florida Keys) ........... 6-25

6.2.2-1 (Visitors) Amount of Money Spent in County Per Person During Most Recent Day Participating in Each Reef-Related Activity and Boating Mode Monroe County From Visitor Boater Survey Responses – 2000 Dollars .................................. 6-26

6.2.2-2 (Visitors) Total Visitor Expenditures In Monroe County Associated with Reef Use All Reef-Related Activities and Boating Modes June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars ........ 6-28

6.2.2-3 (Visitors) Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Expenditures by Visitors to Monroe County Economic Area is Monroe County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars.... 6-29

6.2.3-1 (Visitors) Annual Value of Reefs To Reef Users and Capitalized Value Data Represents June 2000 to May 2001 Visitor Reef-Users in Monroe County....................................... 6-30

6.2.3-2 (Visitors) Estimated Use Value of Investing in and Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs in the County Visitor Reef-Users in Monroe County ................................................... 6-32

6.2.3-3 (Visitors) Value of Reefs to Visitors to Monroe County, by Reef Type and Activity, 2000-2001........................................... 6-33

6.2.4-1 (Visitors) Demographic Characteristics of Visitor Reef-Users in Monroe County, 2000 ......................................... 6-34

6.3.1-1 Number of Person-Days Spent on Artificial and Natural Reefs in Monroe County Residents and Visitors – in millions ............ 6-35

6.3.1-2 Number of Person-Days Spent Using Reefs in Monroe County By Recreational Activity Residents and Visitors – in millions .. 6-35

6.3.2-1 Economic Contribution of Artificial Reef-Related Expenditures to Monroe County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars ... 6-36

6.3.2-2 Economic Contribution of Natural Reef-Related Expenditures to Monroe County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars ... 6-37

6.3.2-3 Economic Contribution of All Reef-Related Expenditures to Monroe County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars ...... 6-37

6.3.3-1 Annual Use Value Associated with Protecting Reefs in their Existing Condition and Capitalized Value associated With Reef Use Data Represents June 2000 to May 2001 Monroe County, Florida ............................................................. 6-38

6.3.3-2 Estimated Value to Reef Users From Investing in and Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs Monroe County, Florida... 6-39

6.3.4-1 Demographic Characteristics of Resident and Visitor Reef-Users in Monroe County, 2000 ......................................... 6-40

Hwd:40289R045.doc ES-1 Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida Final Report

Executive Summary

Investment in and maintenance of public resources is a prime function of government. Artificial and natural reefs are public resources that provide recreational benefits to reef users and income to local economies. This study determined, in a comprehensive manner, the net economic value of southeast Florida’s natural and artificial reef resources to the local economies and the reef users. Southeast Florida is defined as the counties of Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe. This study area includes, from north to south, the cities of West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami, and the Florida Keys.

This study employed extensive survey research to measure the economic contribution and the use values of artificial and natural reefs over the twelve-month period of June 2000 to May 2001. The reef users surveyed were boaters who are recreational fishers (commercial fishers were not included), reef divers, reef snorkelers and/or visitors viewing the reefs on glass-bottom boats. This study estimated the following values:

§ Use of artificial and natural reefs by residents and visitors in each of the four counties over a twelve-month period as measured in terms of person-days

§ Economic contribution of the artificial reefs as residents and visitors spend money in each of the four counties to participate in reef-related recreation

§ Economic contribution of the natural reefs as residents and visitors spend money in each of the four counties to participate in reef-related recreation

§ Willingness of reef users to pay to maintain the natural reefs of southeast Florida in their existing conditions

§ Willingness of reef users to pay to maintain the artificial reefs of southeast Florida in their existing conditions

§ Willingness of reef users to pay for investment in and maintenance of additional artificial reefs in southeast Florida

§ Socioeconomic characteristics of reef users

Economic contribution is measured by total sales, income, employment and tax revenues generated within each county. In addition, the opinions of resident reef-using boat owners regarding the existence or establishment of “no-take” zones as a tool to protect existing artificial and natural reefs are presented.

This study was funded by each of the four counties, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission through the use of Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration funds, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration through the Socioeconomic Monitoring Program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.

Executive Summary


Study Methods . This study conducted four surveys as follows:

§ Resident boaters – mail survey conducted in the Fall of 2000

§ General visitors – intercept survey conducted in the Summer of 2000 and the Winter of 2001

§ Visitor boaters – intercept survey conducted in the Summer of 2000 and the Winter of 2001

§ Charter / Party boats – mail survey conducted in the Spring of 2001

Visitors are defined as nonresidents of the county that they are visiting. Residents are those who live within the county.

The purpose of the resident boater survey and the visitor boater survey was to collect information to estimate the following characteristics:

§ Percentage of all boaters who fish, dive and / or snorkel on the reefs;

§ Itemized expenditures in the county related to using the reefs (lodging, food, gas, equipment, etc.);

§ Number of person-trips and person-days of reef use by type of reef and activity;

§ Willingness of reef users to pay to protect southeast Florida’s natural and artificial reefs in their existing condition;

§ Willingness of reef users to pay for additional artificial reefs in southeast Florida; and,

§ Socioeconomic characteristics of reef users.

In addition, at the request of the counties, the resident survey also included questions regarding “no-take” zones in southeast Florida and in their counties of residence.

The purpose of the general visitor survey was to obtain estimates of the total number of visitors to each county and the percentage of visitors who boat. This information was necessary to estimate reef use.

The charter/party boat survey was a survey of for-hire operations that take out passengers for recreational fishing, snorkeling, scuba diving and glass-bottom boat rides in saltwater off the coasts of the four counties. The primary purpose of this survey was to estimate the proportion of charter / party service activity that takes place on the artificial versus the natural reefs in each county. The results of this survey were used to allocate charter/party boat fishing days between artificial and natural reefs.

Executive Summary


The results of this study are based on the responses to these surveys. The resident mail survey resulted in 2,543 completed surveys. The general visitor intercept survey resulted in 3,855 completed surveys. The visitor boater intercept survey resulted in 2,473 completed surveys. These completed surveys provided sufficient information to estimate the economic value of the reefs to reef users and the economies of each of the southeast Florida counties.

Definitions. Certain terminology is used in this report to represent units of recreational activity. These terms are person-trip and person-day. A person-trip is defined as one person making one trip to a county. That trip may last one day to many days. On any given day, the number of visitor person-trips and the number of visitors are the same. For resident boaters, a person-trip is one day’s outing on a boat to participate in saltwater recreation activities. A person-day is defined as one person participating in an activity for a portion or all of a day.

Number of Days People Participated in Recreational Use of the Reefs. The number of person-days of reef use by county and by reef type is presented in Table ES-1. Visitors and residents spent 28.3 million person-days using artificial and natural reefs in southeast Florida during the 12-month period from June 2000 to May 2001. Reef users spent about 10 million person-days using artificial reefs and 18.4 million person-days using natural reefs.

The breakdown of reef use by residents and visitors is provided in Table ES-2. Overall, residents and visitors each spent about 14 million person-days using the reefs of southeast Florida but the proportions vary by county.

A summary of reef use by type of activity is provided in Table ES-3. Overall, fishing activity on the reefs appears to dominate when snorkeling and scuba diving are compared separately. When snorkeling and scuba diving are considered together as diving activities, diving and fishing contribute about equally to total reef use in southeast Florida. In Palm Beach County, diving and fishing are equally popular activities, while in Miami-Dade County fishing is significantly more prevalent than diving. In Broward and Monroe counties, the levels of fishing activities appear to be more prevalent.

Table ES-1 Number of Person-Days Spent on Artificial and Natural Reefs in

Southeast Florida Residents and Visitors by County

June 2000 to May 2001 Number of Person-Days (in millions)

County Artificial Reefs Natural Reefs All Reefs Palm Beach 1.41 2.83 4.24 Broward 3.97 5.47 9.44 Miami-Dade 2.95 6.22 9.17 Monroe 1.58 3.88 5.46 Total 9.91 18.39 28.30

Executive Summary


Table ES-2

Number of Person-Days Spent on All Reefs Comparison of Visitor Versus Resident Use in Southeast Florida

June 2000 to May 2001 Number of Person-Days (in millions)

County Residents Visitors All Users Palm Beach 2.98 1.26 4.24 Broward 3.72 5.72 9.44 Miami-Dade 4.51 4.66 9.17 Monroe 3.38 2.08 5.46 Total 14.58 13.72 28.30

Table ES-3 Number of Person-Days on All Reefs by Recreational Activity June 2000 to May 2001 – Residents and Visitors (in millions)

Activity Palm Beach

County Broward County

Miami-Dade County

Monroe County

Total – Southeast

Florida Snorkeling 0.74 1.09 2.11 1.87 5.81 Scuba Diving 1.73 3.85 1.14 0.89 7.61 Fishing 1.76 4.45 5.90 2.62 14.74 Glass Bottom Boats 0 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.15 Total 4.23 9.44 9.17 5.46 28.30 a Residents were not asked about their participation in glass bottom boat sightseeing. Therefore, glass bottom boats

include only visitors.

Glass bottom boat sightseeing is available in Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe counties. The reported number of person-days associated with viewing the reefs using glass bottom boats applies to visitors, not residents. Resident boaters were not asked for their level of activity on glass bottom boats. Visitors spent about 160,000 person days on glass bottom boats in southeast Florida.

Contribution of Reef-Related Spending to the County Economies. The total economic contribution of the reefs to each county is the contribution of reef-related expenditures to county sales, income and employment. As residents and visitors spend money in the county to participate in reef-related recreation, income and jobs are created within the county as a result. Economic contribution includes the direct, indirect and induced effects of visitor spending and the direct effects of resident spending.

Executive Summary


The economic contributions of the reefs to each of the counties are provided in Table ES-4. The sales contribution is defined as the value of the additional output produced in the county due to the reef-related expenditures. The total income contribution is defined as the sum of employee compensation, proprietor’s income, interest, rents, and profits generated as a result of the reef-related expenditures. Income is the amount of money that remains in the economy. The employment contribution is the number of full-time and part-time jobs created due to the reef-related expenditures.

Table ES-4 Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Expenditures to Each County1

June 2000 to May 2001 – Residents and Visitors

Type of Economic Contribution Palm Beach


Miami-Dade County

Monroe County

Sales – All Reefs (in millions of 2000 dollars)

$505 $2,070 $1,297 $504

Artificial Reefs $151 $962 $419 $131 Natural Reefs $354 $1,108 $877 $373

Income – All Reefs (in millions of 2000 dollars)

$194 $1,049 $614 $140

Artificial Reefs $52 $502 $195 $33 Natural Reefs $142 $547 $419 $107

Employment – All Reefs (number of full- and part-time jobs)

6,300 35,500 18,600 10,000

Artificial Reefs 1,800 16,800 6,000 2,400 Natural Reefs 4,500 18,700 12,600 7,600 Reef-related expenditures generated $505 million in sales in Palm Beach County, $2.1 billion in sales in Broward County, $1.3 billion in sales in Miami-Dade County and $504 million in sales in Monroe County during the 12-month period from June 2000 to May 2001. These sales resulted in $194 million in income to Palm Beach County residents, $1.1 billion in income to Broward County residents, $614 million in income to Miami-Dade County residents and $140 million in income to Monroe County residents during the same time period. Reef-related

1 The economic contributions cannot be summed over the four counties to get the total economic contribution

of the reefs to southeast Florida. This is because the concept of economic contribution looks at the economy of the individual geographic area as a separate entity from its neighbors. In this study, visitors were asked how much they spent in the county they were visiting. They were not asked how much they spent in the other three counties. Also, visitors to a county can come from one of the other three southeast Florida counties. When looking at southeast Florida as a whole, only the indirect and induced contribution of visitors from outside the four counties can be considered as 100 percent reef-related. To get the economic contribution of the reefs to all of southeast Florida, the southeast Florida expenditures of visitor reef users to southeast Florida would have to be estimated wherein a visitor lives outside the four county area.

Executive Summary


expenditures provided 6,300 jobs in Palm Beach County, 35,500 jobs in Broward County, 18,600 jobs in Miami-Dade County and 10,000 jobs in Monroe County.

In Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties, artificial reef-related expenditures comprised about a third and natural reef-related expenditures comprised about two-thirds of the economic contribution associated with the reef system. In Broward County, artificial and natural reef-related expenditures added equally to the economic contribution of the reef system. In Monroe County, artificial reef-related expenditures comprised about 26 percent of the economic contribution associated with the reef system.

Value that Reef Users Place on the Reefs. In this study, four types of use values were estimated: (1) the value to natural reef users of maintaining the natural reefs in their existing condition; (2) the value to artificial reef users of maintaining the artificial reefs in their existing condition; (3) the value to artificial and natural reef users of maintaining both the artificial and natural reefs in their existing condition; and (4) the value of adding and maintaining additional artificial reefs. In general, use value is the maximum amount of money that reef users are willing to pay to maintain the reefs in their existing condition and to add more artificial reefs to the system. Use value was measured in terms of per party per trip for existing natural and artificial reefs and per party per year for new artificial reefs. For presentation, values were normalized to values per person-day of reef-related activity so that the use values can be compared to use values estimated in other studies. Use value is also presented in aggregate for all users of the reef system.

The reef user values associated with maintaining the reefs in their existing conditions for each county are provided in Table ES-5. Use value per person-day means the value per person-day of artificial, natural or all reef use, as specified in the table. Values for all reefs were taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 38 of the Visitor Boater Survey: “Suppose that both of the above plans to maintain the natural and artificial reefs in southeast Florida were put together into a combined program...If your total costs for this trip would have been $___ higher, would you have been willing to pay this amount to maintain the artificial and natural reefs?” The dollar values provided to the respondents were rotated from respondent to respondent and were $20, $100, $200, $400, $1,000 and $2,000. The responses were then statistically analyzed to calculate average values. Values for artificial reefs were taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 36 pertaining only to a program to maintain the existing artificial reefs in their current condition. Values for natural reefs were taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 34 pertaining only to a program to maintain the natural reefs in their current condition. For the individual reef types (artificial or natural), the dollar values provided to the respondents were rotated and were $10, $50, $100, $200, $500, and $1,000.

Executive Summary


Table ES-5 Annual Use Value From June 2000 to May 2001 and Capitalized Value associated With Reef Use

Southeast Florida – Residents and Visitors

Item Palm Beach


Miami-Dade County

Monroe County Totala

All Reefs - Artificial and Natural Person-Days of Reef Use (in millions) 4.24 9.44 9.17 5.46 28.30 Use Value Per Person-Day $7.34 $13.35 $5.12 $9.48 $9.04 Annual Use Value in million dollars $31.11 $126.00 $46.92 $51.78 $255.81 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate in billion dollars

$1.04 $4.20 $1.6 $1.70 $8.5

Artificial Reefs Person-Days of Reef Use (in millions) 1.41 3.97 2.95 1.58 9.91 Use Value Per Person-Day $6.47 $14.07 $3.50 $6.18 $8.58 Annual Use Value in million dollars $9.09 $55.87 $10.33 $9.75 $85.04 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate in billion dollars

$0.30 $1.86 $0.34 $0.33 $2.83

Natural Reefs Person-Days of Reef Use (in millions) 2.83 5.47 6.22 3.88 18.39 Use Value Per Person-Day $14.86 $15.16 $7.54 $14.82 $12.47 Annual Use Value in million dollars $42.10 $82.88 $46.86 $57.46 $229.30 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate in billion dollars

$1.40 $2.76 $1.56 $1.92 $7.64 a Use Value per Person per Day is calculated by dividing Total Annual Use Value by Total Person-Days of Reef Use. Note: Use value per person day means per person day of artificial, natural or all reef use. Values for all reefs taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 38 of

Visitor Boater Survey: Suppose that both of the above plans to maintain the natural and artificial reefs in southeast Florida were put together into a combined program...If you total costs for this trip would have been $___ higher, would you have been willing to pay this amount to maintain the artificial and natural reefs. Values for artificial reefs taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 36 pertaining only to a program to maintain the existing artificial reefs in their current condition. Values for natural reefs taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 34 pertaining only to a program to maintain the natural reefs in their current condition. Therefore, the sum of the values for the individual reef programs may be different from the value for both programs. These results were estimated using the Logit model. Alternate methods of estimation are provided in the Technical Appendix to this report.

Executive Summary


Visitor and resident reef users in Palm Beach County are willing to pay $31.1 million per year to maintain both the artificial reefs and the natural reefs in their current condition by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to reefs from anchoring, and preventing overuse of the reefs. When the projects to protect the artificial and natural reefs are considered separately, visitor and resident reef users are willing to pay $9.1 million to protect the artificial reefs and $42.1 million to protect the natural reefs.

Visitor and resident reef users in Broward County are willing to pay $126 million per year to maintain both the artificial reefs and the natural reefs in their current condition by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to reefs from anchoring, and preventing overuse of the reefs. When the projects to protect the artificial and natural reefs are considered separately, visitor and resident reef users are willing to pay $55.9 million to protect the artificial reefs and $82.9 million to protect the natural reefs.

Visitor and resident reef users in Miami-Dade County are willing to pay $46.9 million per year to maintain both the artificial reefs and the natural reefs in their current condition by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to reefs from anchoring, and preventing overuse of the reefs. When the projects to protect the artificial and natural reefs are considered separately, visitor and resident reef users are willing to pay $10.3 million to protect the artificial reefs and $46.9 million to protect the natural reefs.

Visitor and resident reef users in Monroe County are willing to pay $51.8 million per year to maintain both the artificial reefs and the natural reefs in their current condition by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to reefs from anchoring, and preventing overuse of the reefs. When the projects to protect the artificial and natural reefs are considered separately, visitor and resident reef users are willing to pay $9.8 million to protect the artificial reefs and $57.4 million to protect the natural reefs.

Visitor and resident reef users in all four counties are willing to pay $255.8 million per year to maintain both the artificial reefs and the natural reefs in southeast Florida in their current condition by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to reefs from anchoring, and preventing overuse of the reefs. When the projects to protect the artificial and natural reefs are considered separately, visitor and resident reef users in all four counties are willing to pay $85.1 million per year to protect the artificial reefs and $229.3 million per year to protect the natural reefs in southeast Florida.

The sum of the values for the individual reef programs can be different from the value for the combined programs. This result is not inconsistent with the literature on embedded values. Randall and Hoehn (1992) have shown that this type of result is consistent with economic theory. The combined programs have exceeded the income constraints of many respondents and/or many respondents had value for only one of the programs. So it is reasonable to conclude that the estimated values for the natural and artificial reefs valued separately and together are valid estimates. Bear in mind that willingness to pay for the combined programs is a different scenario from willingness to pay for the individual programs.

Executive Summary


The capitalized value of the reef user va lues is equal to the present value of the annual values calculated at three percent discount rate. It represents the “stock” value analogous to land market values. The capitalized reef user value for all southeast Florida reefs is $7.6 billion. Bear in mind that this value only includes the value that reef users place on the reefs and does not include the values that non-reef-users place on the reefs or the economic contribution of the reefs. The estimation of the value of the reefs to non-reef users was not part of this study.

Visitor and resident reef users’ willingness to pay to invest in and maintain “new” artificial reefs is provided in Table ES-6. The use value per person-day is the value per day or a portion of a day of artificial reef use. In Palm Beach County, reef users are willing to pay $4.7 million annually for this program in Palm Beach County. Broward County reef users are willing to pay $15.7 million per year while Miami-Dade County reef users are willing to pay $4.1 million per year. Monroe County reef users are willing to pay $2.2 million annually per year to fund this program in Monroe County. These values are those that are appropriate to use in a benefit-cost analysis of providing new artificial reefs.

Table ES-6 Estimated Use Value of Investing in and Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs

Southeast Florida – Residents and Visitors

Item Palm Beach


Miami-Dade County

Monroe County

Totala

Person-Days of Artificial Reef Use (in millions)

1.41 3.97 2.95 1.58 9.91

Use Value Per Person-Day for "New" Artificial Reefs $3.37 $3.95 $1.38 $1.38 $2.69

Annual Use Values for "New" Artificial Reefs in million dollars $4.74 $15.70 $4.07 $2.19 $26.70

Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate in million dollars

$157.8 $523.4 $135.8 $73.00 $890.1

a Use Value per Person per Day is the average among the counties. Note: Use value per person-day is a day or portion of a day of artificial reef use.

Resident Opinions of “No Take” Zones. Both the economic contribution and the use value of the reef system are based upon its management or lack thereof. In each of the four counties, resident reef-users were asked questions regarding “no take” zones. A “no take” zone is a designated area of the reef system in which nothing is to be taken from this area including fish and shellfish.

Executive Summary


Because the reefs play a vital role in the entire oceanic ecosystem by providing habitat and protection for young fish and other creatures, it is argued that “no-take” zones would actually increase recreational, commercial, and natural resource benefits even though takings would be banned in certain areas. No one knows exactly where and to what degree “no-take” zones must be employed to increase net benefits. As a result, “no-take” zones have become a controversial issue. Therefore, as part of this study, resident respondents were asked their opinions regarding the establishment of “no-take” zones as a management tool for artificial and natural reefs in southeast Florida.

These opinions are summarized in Table ES-7. It is apparent from this table that a majority of resident reef-users endorse the idea of “no-take” zones in their county and in the other southeast Florida counties. A majority of residents would support “no take” zones on 20 to 25 percent of the existing natural reefs. About 75 percent of respondents in all counties supported the existing “no take” zones in the Florida Keys. About 60 percent of respondents supported “no take” zones in their own counties and about the same percentage supported “no take” zones on some of the reefs in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties. Such a result provides public officials with information important to the management of the reef system from Palm Beach County to Monroe County.

Executive Summary


Table ES-7 A Summary of the Opinion of Resident Reef-Users on

"No Take" Zones in Southeast Florida, 2000 Question: "Support Existing "No Take" Zones in the Florida Keys"

County

Percentage of Respondents

Answering "Yes"


Answering "No"


Answering "Don't Know" Palm Beach 76% 15% 9% Broward 75% 18% 7% Miami-Dade 74% 19% 7% Monroe 78% 18% 4% Question: "Support "No Take" Zones on Some Reefs in Your County"

County


Answering "Yes"


Answering "No"


Answering "Don't Know" Palm Beach 65% 23% 12% Broward 63% 27% 10% Miami-Dade 61% 28% 11% Monroe1 57% 21% 22% Question: "Support "No Take" Zones on Some Reefs off Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and

Broward Counties"

County


Answering "Yes"


Answering "No"


Answering "Don't Know" Palm Beach 65% 21% 14% Broward 64% 24% 12% Miami-Dade 61% 28% 11% Monroe 44% 39% 17% Question: "What Percentage of Coral or Natural Reefs in Your County Would Be

Reasonable to Protect Using "No Take" Zones?" County Average Percentage Median Percentage Palm Beach 30% 20% Broward 35% 25% Miami-Dade 30% 20% Monroe 32% 20% 1 Since Monroe County already has "no take" zones, the word "additional" was inserted into this question for Monroe County

surveys.

Executive Summary


Demographic Characteristics of Reef Users. Demographic characteristics were obtained from the resident boater survey and the visitor boater survey. They are summarized in Tables ES-8 and ES-9. The typical reef user is a non-Hispanic white male, in his forties, with an annual household income from $55,000 to $90,000. However, the demographic picture provided in Table ES-8 also shows that females, non-whites and Hispanic persons also use the reefs. Visitor reef-users tend to be younger than resident reef users. Also, larger proportions of visitors than residents are women and/or non-white.

Table ES-8 Demographic Characteristics of Resident and Visitor Reef-Users in Southeast Florida,

2000 Median Age of Respondent Resident Reef-Users Visitor Reef-Users Palm Beach 48 41 Broward 48 39 Miami-Dade 46 41 Monroe 54 44

Resident Reef-Users Visitor Reef-Users Sex Of Respondent Male Female Male Female Palm Beach 91% 9% 79% 21% Broward 92% 8% 77% 23% Miami-Dade 93% 7% 75% 25% Monroe 86% 14% 70% 30%

Resident Reef-Users Visitor Reef-Users Race Of Respondent White Black Other White Black Other Palm Beach 97% 0% 3% 94% 2% 4% Broward 93% 2% 5% 89% 7% 4% Miami-Dade 88% 1% 11% 83% 7% 10% Monroe 94% 0.2% 5.8% 95% 2% 3%

Percent Hispanic/Latino Resident Reef-Users Visitor Reef-Users Palm Beach 4% 5% Broward 5% 13% Miami-Dade 33% 29% Monroe 7% 8%

Median Household Income Resident Reef-Users Visitor Reef-Users Palm Beach $71,695 $87,500 Broward $72,310 $87,500 Miami-Dade $69,722 $55,000 Monroe $56,393 $87,500

Executive Summary


From Table ES-9, it is clear that residents have been boating in southeast Florida for a significantly longer period of time than visitors – about 22 years versus 7 years. Overall, visitor and resident boat owners have similar sized boats and both resident and visitor reef users have about the same probability of belonging to a fishing or diving club.

Table ES-9 Boater Profile of Resident and Visitor Reef-Users in Southeast Florida, 2000

Average Years Boating in South Florida County Residents Visitors

Palm Beach 21 9 Broward 22 7 Miami-Dade 25 7 Monroe 22 7

Average Length of Boat Used for Salt Water Activities in Feet

County Residents Visitors


Percentage of Respondents Who Belong to Fishing and/or Diving Clubs

County Residents Visitors

Palm Beach 20% 24% Broward 19% 12% Miami-Dade 18% 6% Monroe 15% 11%

Hwd:40289R031.doc 1-1 Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida Final Report

Chapter 1: Introduction

This study estimated the net economic value of the natural and artificial reef resources of southeast Florida to the local economies and the reef users. Southeast Florida is defined as the counties of Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe. Monroe County includes the Florida Keys. This study employed extensive survey research to measure the economic contribution and the use values of artificial and natural reefs over the twelve-month period of June 2000 to May 2001. The reef users surveyed were boaters who are recreational fishers (commercial fishers were not included), reef divers, reef snorkelers, and/or visitors viewing the reefs on glass-bottom boats. The primary goals of this study are to estimate the following values:

§ Total reef use of residents and visitors in each of the four counties over a twelve-month period as measured in terms of person-days

§ Economic contribution of the artificial reefs as residents and visitors spend money in each of the four counties to participate in reef-related recreation

§ Economic contribution of the natural reefs as residents and visitors spend money in each of the four counties to participate in reef-related recreation

§ Willingness of reef users to pay to maintain the natural reefs of southeast Florida in their existing conditions

§ Willingness of reef users to pay to maintain the artificial reefs of southeast Florida in their existing conditions

§ Willingness of reef users to pay for additional artificial reefs in southeast Florida

§ Socioeconomic characteristics of reef users

Economic contribution is measured by total sales, income, employment and tax revenues generated within each county. In addition, the opinions of residents regarding the existence or establishment of “no-take” zones as a tool to protect existing artificial and natural reefs are presented.

This study was funded by each of the four counties, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission through the use of Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration funds, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through the Socioeconomic Monitoring Program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.

1.1 Project Objectives For each of the four counties, the population of reef users was divided into two groups – (1) visitors to the county and (2) residents of the county. Visitors are defined as nonresidents of the county that they are visiting. For example, a person from Broward County visiting the Florida Keys in Monroe County is considered a visitor to Monroe County. Likewise, a person from New York visiting the Florida Keys is considered a visitor. For each county, residents are defined as

1.0 Introduction


persons living in the county who used the reefs on a private boat registered in that county. For example, a person who lives in Broward County and fishes for recreation on the reefs off the shores of Broward County using a private boat registered in Broward County is a resident of Broward County. This study conducted four surveys as follows:

§ Resident boater survey – conducted in the Fall of 2000

§ General visitor survey – conducted in the Summer of 2000 and the Winter of 2001

§ Visitor boater survey – conducted in the Summer of 2000 and the Winter of 2001

§ Charter / Party boat survey – conducted in the Spring of 2001

The purpose of the resident boater survey and the visitor boater survey was to collect information to estimate the following characteristics:

§ Percentage of boaters who fish, dive and / or snorkel on the reefs;

§ Total of itemized expenditures related to using the reefs (lodging, food, gas, equipment, etc.);

§ Number of person-visits and person-days of reef use by type of reef and activity;

§ Willingness-to-pay to protect southeast Florida reefs in their existing condition; and,

§ Willingness-to-pay for additional reefs in southeast Florida.

In addition, at the request of the counties, the resident survey also includes questions regarding “no-take” zones in their counties of residence.

The purpose of the general visitor survey was to obtain estimates of the total number of visitors to each county and the percentage of visitors who boat.

The charter/party boat survey was a survey of for-hire operations that take out passengers for recreational fishing, snorkeling, scuba diving and glass-bottom boat rides in saltwater off the coasts of the four counties. The primary purpose of this survey was to estimate the proportion of charter / party service activity that takes place on the artificial versus the natural reefs in each county.

Resident Boater Survey. The resident boater survey was a mail survey of boaters who own a boat 16 feet or greater and whose boats are registered in the counties of Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Monroe. The minimum boat size of 16 feet was selected because this is the minimum size that can safely navigate the harbor entrances of Palm Beach, Port Everglades and

1.0 Introduction


Miami. In order to reach the Atlantic Ocean, a boat must use one of these entrances to navigate from the Intracoastal Waterway to the Atlantic Ocean and back.1

The survey research effort was comprised of two versions of the survey: Version 1 and Version 2. The two versions are identical except for the contingent valuation (CV) questions. In Version 1, the CV questions address willingness-to-pay to maintain the natural and artificial reefs in their current condition. In Version 2, the CV questions address willingness-to-pay for additional artificial reefs in southeast Florida.

The survey instruments for each county were identical except that, in Monroe county, additional questions addressed the importance of certain Florida Keys attributes to the respondent and the respondent’s satisfaction with those attributes (Importance / Satisfaction Survey funded by NOAA). The results of the Importance / Satisfaction Survey are not included in this document, but will be provided in a future NOAA report.

The resident surveys and the cover letter are provided in Appendix A.

The resident survey began as a telephone survey. Boat owner information from Florida’s boater registration files was used to identify boat owners in southeast Florida. Boater registration information includes owner’s name and address, but not telephone number. The computerized boater registrations of boats 16 feet or greater were merged with the computerized White Pages directory to identify the telephone numbers of the registered boat owners. Boaters were randomly sampled from the merged file. The six-week telephone survey effort generated 72 completed surveys from 8,500 attempted telephone calls to boat owners. The reasons for such a low response rate included, in order of frequency, no answer; wrong telephone number; and refusal to complete the survey over the telephone. This low response rate for telephone interviews is a new phenomenon that has been noted in many other recent telephone surveys throughout the United States. Also, the resident boater survey is relatively long and appears to be too long to successfully complete over the telephone.

Because the response rate was so low, the telephone survey was converted to a mail survey. This approach was successful in meeting the survey goals. The resident boater addresses were obtained from the boater registration records. Based on recent survey experience, people appear to be more patient in completing a long mail survey than a long telephone survey.

The mailing list for each county was created by selecting a random sample of boat owners with boats 16 feet or greater from each county’s boater registration file. The number of surveys that were mailed out by county is presented in Table 1.2-1.

1 Smaller boats have been sighted trying to navigate the cuts in the Intracoastal Waterway to reach the

ocean but this is not common and is considered to be dangerous. Residents and visitors can also reach the reefs via a small boat from the shore or by swimming to the reef. These residents are a small subset of total reef users and were not surveyed due to time and budget constraints. The study results represent most of the reef user-days in southeast Florida.

1.0 Introduction


Table 1.2-1 Number of Surveys Mailed to Resident Boaters by County

Survey Version Number

Palm Beach Broward

Miami-Dade Monroe

1 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,750 2 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,750

Total 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,500 Surveys were mailed to 3,000 resident boaters in each of Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Monroe counties in order to meet the survey goals of 500 completed surveys per county for the Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida. An additional 500 surveys were mailed to resident boaters in Monroe County to increase the number of completed Importance / Satisfaction surveys. The number of surveys mailed out presumed a response rate of about 17 percent. The actual response rate was 22 percent.

Florida State University mailed out the surveys. All surveys were mailed out by November 15, 2000. The response rates to the mail survey are provided in Table 1.2-2. The survey goals were met for each county.

Table 1.2-2 Summary of Resident Boater Survey Success

Item Total Monroe Miami- Dade

Palm Beach Broward

Number Mailed to Residents 12,500 3,500 3,000 3,000 3,000 Number Returned Undeliverable 813 263 162 199 189 Number of Completed Surveys Received:

Residents who used reefs in their county of residence in the past year

1,658 596 378 330 354

Residents who did not use reefs in their county of residence in the past year

885 194 174 286 231

Total Completed Surveys Received 2,543 790 552 616 585 Survey Goal - Number of Completed Surveys 2,300 800 500 500 500 Percent of Survey Goal Met 111% 99% 110% 123% 117% Percent of Completed Surveys Received:

Residents who used reefs in their county of residence in the past year

65.2% 75.4% 68.5% 53.6% 60.5%

Residents who did not use reefs in their county of residence in the past year

34.8% 24.6% 31.5% 46.4% 39.5%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Percent of Completed Surveys Received of All Mailed

20.3% 22.6% 18.4% 20.5% 19.5%

Percent of Completed Surveys Received of All Surveys not Returned Undeliverable 21.8% 24.4% 19.5% 22.0% 20.8%

1.0 Introduction


Visitor Boater Survey and General Visitor Survey. The visitor boater survey and the general visitor survey were intercept surveys where survey researchers canvassed locations where visitors were likely to be. The researchers conducted voluntary in-person surveys at these locations. The general visitor survey targeted all visitors to the county. The visitor boater survey targeted visitors who participated in reef-related recreation using a boat in that county in the past twelve months. For visitor boaters, the intercept locations included marinas, charter/party boat operations, hotels, and campgrounds. For general visitors, the intercept locations were airports, attractions and hotels. The surveys were conducted in the summer of 2000 and the winter of 2001 to adequately model the seasonality of visitation.

The surveys are presented in Appendix B. The list of interview site locations is provided in Appendix C.

The summer survey was conducted from June 21, 2000 through September 5, 2000. The winter survey was conducted from February 22, 2001 to April 12, 2001. Volunteers provided by Bicentennial Volunteers, Inc. conducted the intercept surveys at selected sites within each county. In the summer, Rife Market Research, Inc. also provided survey researchers to assist the Bicentennial Volunteers. The levels of survey research effort for each county during the summer and winter surveys are presented in Table 1.2-3 and Table 1.2-4.

Table 1.2-3 Survey Research Level of Effort

Summer Survey Period

County Survey Research Team Survey Effort in

Person-Days Dates Surveyed Palm Beach Bicentennial Volunteers - 1 couple 44 June 21 through July 19 Rife Market Research 96 August 10 through September 5 Broward Bicentennial Volunteers – 1 couple 84 June 21 through August 18 Bicentennial Volunteers – 1 couple 36 July 7 through August 4 Rife Market Research 20 August 20 through September 5 Miami-Dade Bicentennial Volunteers – 1 couple 2 June 21a Rife Market Research 140 July 17 through August 27 Monroe – Middle and Lower Keys

Bicentennial Volunteers – 3 couples 210 June 21 through August 8

Monroe – Key Largo Rife Market Research 70 July 17 through August 27 Total 702 June 21 through September 5 a All surveys in Miami-Dade County were stopped on June 22 due to the coastal sewage spill in North Miami. Surveys

resumed on July 17.

1.0 Introduction


Table 1.2-4 Survey Research Level of Effort

Winter Survey Period February 22 to April 12, 2001

County Person-Days Palm Beach 130 Broward 150 Miami-Dade 140 Monroe 280 Total 700

The numbers of completed surveys of the general visitor survey and the visitor boater survey are provided in Table 1.2-5 and Table 1.2-6, respectively. The number of completed surveys was sufficient to adequately estimate the economic and use values of the reefs. The survey instrument is provided in Appendix D.

Table 1.2-5 General Visitor Survey Tally

Number of Completed Surveys County Summer Winter Total Palm Beach 405 396 801 Broward 659 282 941 Miami-Dade 526 353 879 Monroe 648 586 1,234 Total 2,238 1,617 3,855

Table 1.2-6 Visitor Boater Survey Tally

Number of Completed Surveys County Summer Winter Total Palm Beach 198 292 490 Broward 143 109 252 Miami-Dade 240 99 339 Monroe 504 888 1,392 Total 1,085 1,388 2,473

Charter / Party Boat Survey. A mail-back questionnaire was mailed to 500 charter / party boat operators who were believed to be operating in southeast Florida. Under a charter service, the boat owner / guide takes a group of six or fewer fishers (or divers / snorkelers) for a full- or half-

1.0 Introduction


day of fishing (or diving / snorkeling) trip for a fee. Under a party service, the boat owner / guide takes from seven to several dozen (or more) fishers (or divers / snorkelers) on a trip for a fee per person. Experience in the Northwest Florida Artificial Reef Study (Bell, Bonn and Leeworthy, 1998) found that recreational fishermen who used charter and party boats did not know whether they were fishing on artificial or natural reefs. The captains and mates rarely, if ever, inform their passengers whether they are fishing on an artificial or a natural reef. The response rate for this survey was very low for two key reasons: (1) some owners did not operate in southeast Florida during year 2000-2001; (2) boat owners are reluctant to provide business information. The 70 responses to this survey were used to apportion the number of charter and party fishing days between artificial reefs, natural reefs and no reefs. The results of this survey are provided in Table 1.2-7.

Table 1.2-7 Percent of Recreational Fishing Passenger Days Spent on Artificial and Natural Reefs

From Charter/Party Boat Survey Percent Days Fished On:

County Sample

Size

Total Passenger Days in Past 12

Months – Survey Respondents

Artificial Reefs

Natural Reefs No Reefs

Sum of Percentages

Palm Beach 11 1,695 14% 46% 40% 100% Broward 11 1,271 14% 16% 70% 100% Miami-Dade 14 37,585 32% 40% 28% 100% Monroe 34 16,340 5% 44% 51% 100% All Counties 70 56,891 24% 41% 36% 100% Source: Charter / Party Boat Mail Survey conducted from March to May 2001

1.2 Summaries, Modeling, and Statistical Evaluation The survey responses were used to estimate the economic and use values of the reefs. The types of reef-related recreation that were considered in the survey included the following saltwater recreational boating activities:

§ fishing

§ diving

§ snorkeling

For visitors, glass bottom boat tours were also considered. Also, for visitors, each activity was tied to a boating mode. These boating modes were charter boats; party boats; rental boats; and own or private boat.

Three types of evaluations were conducted as follows.

1.0 Introduction


Data Summaries. Summaries of the survey responses were used to describe the characteristics of reef users. These characteristics include median age, household income, length of boat and years boating; and respondent distribution of sex, race, education and member of fishing or diving club.

Modeling. The survey responses and the Capacity Utilization Model (CAP) were used to calculate person-trips, person-days, and expenditures on reef-related activities for each county. The CAP is explained in more detail in Chapter 2.2.

For visitors, the number of person-trips to a county where the person participated in reef-related recreation was calculated. A person-trip is defined as one person making one trip to a county. That trip may last one day to many days. On any given day, the number of visitor person-trips and the number of visitors are the same. For resident boaters, a person-trip is one day’s outing on a boat.

For both visitors and residents, the number of person-days was calculated by boating activity and boating mode (private boat, rental boat, charter boat, party boat). A person-day is defined as one person participating in an activity for a portion or all of a day.

For residents, the term “party-day” is used to convert the resident survey responses to person-days. A party-day is defined as one boat carrying one or more passengers for a day or partial day of recreation.

The average itemized expenditures per day while participating in each type of reef-related recreation activity were calculated from the resident boater and visitor boater survey responses. The type of expenditures included charter / party boat fees, lodging, food, gasoline, car rental, ramp and marina fees, bait, tackle, ice, equipment rental, and air refills. Only those expenditures that were made in the county were included. If the survey respondent participated in two reef-related boating recreation activities in one day, which only happened when a private boat was used, then the reported day’s expenditures were halved for each activity. Total expenditure on reef-related recreation within the county was obtained by multiplying the average itemized expenditures per person-day for each activity and boat mode by the number of person-days associated with each activity and boat mode and summing over all the activities and boating modes.

The reef-related expenditures were always itemized in order to calculate the economic contribution of these expenditures. Economic contribution is the increase in sales, income, employment and tax revenues generated within the county from reef-related expenditures. The magnitude of the economic contribution depends on the types of goods and services purchased.

Expenditures by visitors generate income and jobs within the industries that supply reef-related goods and services, such as charter / party boat operations, restaurants and hotels. These industries are called direct industries. In addition, these expenditures create multiplier effects wherein additional income and employment is created as the income earned by the reef-related

1.0 Introduction


industries is respent within the county. These additional effects of reef-related expend itures are called indirect and induced. Indirect effects are generated as the reef-related industries purchase goods and services from other industries in the county. Induced effects are created when the employees of the direct and indirect industries spend their money in the county.

For visitors, the direct, indirect and induced economic contribution of the reefs was estimated using the estimated reef-related expenditures and economic input-output models.

For residents, the expenditures were converted to sales, income and employment generated within the directly affected industries. The multiplier effect of reef-related spending by residents in the county was not estimated because this spending is also the result of multiplier effects from other economic activities within the county. The multiplier effect of resident spending on reef-related activities is attributed both to the reef system and to these other economic activities that generated the resident income used to purchase the reef-related goods and services. Thus, the economic importance of the reefs would be overstated if the multiplier effects were considered. To provide a conservative estimate of the economic contribution of resident use of the reef system, the multiplier effects were not included.

Statistical Analysis. The user values of the natural and artificial reefs were estimated using the survey responses and statistical models. Three user values were defined as follows.

Natural Reefs - The user value of natural reefs was defined in this study as the maximum amount of additional money a person would be willing to give up per trip to southeast Florida to use the natural reefs. This amount is over and above the respondent’s expenditures the last time he/she used the natural reefs in southeast Florida. This money would be used to ensure that southeast Florida’s natural reef system was maintained in its existing condition.

Existing Artificial Reefs - The user value of existing artificial reefs was defined in this study as the maximum amount of money a person would be willing to give up per trip to southeast Florida to use the artificial reefs. This amount is over and above the respondent’s expenditures the last time he/she used the artificial reefs in southeast Florida. This money would be used to ensure that southeast Florida’s artificial reef system was maintained in its existing condition.

New Artificial Reefs with Maintenance - The user value of new artificial reefs was defined in this study as the maximum amount of additional money a person would be willing to give up per year to fund a construction and maintenance program for new artificial reefs. Artificial reefs would be constructed and maintained using this fund.

Separate statistical evaluations were used to estimate resident values and visitor values. Within the resident or visitor category the responses to the contingent valuation questions were pooled over all four counties. This is because the respondent was asked to consider all reef-related trips within southeast Florida over the past 12 months, not just those within the county of interview.

1.0 Introduction


The estimated user values per trip were converted to user value per person-day and multiplied by the number of person-days associated with artificial and natural reefs.

1.3 Report Organization This report begins with an Executive Summary and this Introduction, which is Chapter 1. Chapter 2 summarizes the economic contribution and use values of all four counties. Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 summarize the reef-related economic contribution and use value within Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe counties, respectively. Within each of these chapters, the values associated with both residents and visitors are provided. The appendices provide the survey instruments and the list of visitor intercept site locations. Details regarding evaluation of the survey data are provided in the Technical Appendix to this report.


Chapter 2: Socioeconomic Values of Reefs in Southeast Florida

The artificial and natural reefs of southeast Florida provide benefits to those who use the reefs and to those who depend on the local economies. Investment in and maintenance of public resources, such as the reef system, is a prime function of government. Policy makers need to know the extent of reef use by the public and the importance of reefs to the public in order to prioritize investments that protect the reefs and provide for new artificial reefs.

The reef users evaluated in this study are the visitors and residents who fish off the reefs using a boat; who scuba dive and/or snorkel on the reefs using a boat; and/or who view the reefs from glass-bottom boats. The southeastern part of Florida is the focus of this study and includes Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties that border the Atlantic Ocean and Monroe County which borders both the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. Monroe County includes the Florida Keys.

This chapter summarizes the results of a detailed analysis of the socioeconomic value of reefs in southeast Florida to residents and visitors. Chapters 3 through 6 discuss the results for each of the four counties mentioned above. Each chapter includes the following information.

1) Boater activity on the reef system by residents and visitors;

2) Economic contribution of artificial and natural reefs to the county’s economy;

3) Resident and visitor use value from recreating on artificial and natural reefs;

4) Demographic and boater profile of reef users; and

5) For residents, their opinions regarding “no-take” zones as a tool to maximize the public value of the reef system.

The goal of this research is to aid public policy makers in their efforts to deploy additional artificial reefs, to care for the existing natural and artificial reef systems and to formulate management strategies, which will be in the best interest of the residents and visitors to each county.

Economic contribution of the reefs refers to the sales, income, and employment generated in each county as a result of visitors and residents spending money in the county to use the reefs. The income and employment represents money and employment that stays within the county as a result of reef use.

Although the economic contribution of the reef system is important, it does not measure the recreational value derived by reef users. The reef is called a “common property” resource because it is not owned by one individual, but by society in general. There is no one selling tickets to admit fishers to a reef. However, a recreational experience on a reef yields “value”

2.0 Socioeconomic Value of Reefs in Southeast Florida


expressed in dollar terms to fishers and divers. Ordinary market forces, however, do not measure this value. In this case, economists are able to simulate the market value of these resources using various methodologies. There is a “use value” associated with reef systems that should be measured, if possible. The reason for such a measurement is to provide information to the government on the benefits of the reefs to reef users. This value can be compared to the investments that are made to create artificial reefs and/or to maintain artificial and natural reefs. An earlier study by Bell, et al (2000) focused on the benefits and costs of artificial reef systems in Northwest Florida.

There is also a value of reefs to non-reef users that is in addition to the values enjoyed by reef users. Therefore, the total value of natural reefs is the sum of the values to reef users and non-reef users. The estimation of the value of the reefs to non-reef users was not part of this study.

2.1 Residents The focus of this section is the socioeconomic values of the reefs in Southeast Florida to resident boaters. Resident boaters are those individuals who live within one of the four counties in the study area, who used a boat that is owned by a resident of that county, and who used the boat for saltwater recreational activities offshore of that county during the study period. For this study, the population of resident boaters was treated separately from visitors. For example, resident boaters of Palm Beach County are those individuals who used a boat owned by a resident of Palm Beach County to participate in saltwater recreational activities off shore of Palm Beach County during the study period. A resident of Palm Beach County who uses a Palm Beach County registered boat to visit the reefs off Broward County is considered a visitor to Broward County for the purposes of this study. Resident boats are defined as those greater than or equal to 16 feet in length and registered with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

2.1.1 User Activity - Residents There are two fundamental measures of natural resource user activity such as scuba diving the reef systems off southeast Florida. First, user activity can be measured by the number of boating days. This is usually called “party-days” since each boat carries one or more individuals depending, for the most part, on the size of the boat. Party-days gives us a “boating measure” of activity. This measure is important for several purposes. For instance, this measure can be used to estimate boat ramp use for planning purposes. In addition, this measure can be used to estimate the number of boats that are expected to arrive at artificial and/or natural reefs in a given day.

Finally, the term “party-days” is used in economic analysis because the party is the principal spending unit. When we multiply the number of party-days by the number in the party, we obtain “person-days”. This second measure of boating activity is important since it tells us how many people will be fishing and/or diving on a particular reef during a day. In the case of fishing, a person-day is the principal measure of fishing effort or pressure on a renewable resource (e.g., fishery biomass).



"Person-days" is of particular significance when estimating the “user value” of recreating while using a reef. The principal unit of both consumption and production of an activity involving the reefs is a “person-day”. If it were determined that recreational fishers valued a day of fishing at a reef at $10 per person per day, then a party of four (i.e., the party-day) would receive $40 in “use value” (four person days multiplied by the value per person per day from recreational fishing). Thus, while the party-day is boat oriented in terms of accommodating a boatload of fishers, a person-day measures both fishing effort on a resource and the unit of output of the resource available to the user. Thus, the first order of business in this project was to estimate the number of party-days and person-days by residents involved in reef-related activities off the southeastern coast of Florida.

Table 2.1.1-1 presents resident boater user activity on artificial and natural reefs for Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe counties as measured in party-days and person-days. These activity measures were estimated in a two-step procedure. First, a mail survey was sent to a sample of registered boat owners in the four counties in the study area during the Fall of 2000. A total of 12,500 surveys were mailed out to registered boat owners in the study area who owned boats at least 16 feet long. The boat size distinction was made because reef visitations are heavily concentrated among larger boats and we wished to target the segment of the boater population that are heavy reef users. This allowed us to obtain a larger sample of our targeted group with greater statistical reliability. Florida State University received 2,543 completed surveys from resident boaters. Of the surveys received, 65.2 percent of respondents reported using artificial and/or natural reefs in the last 12 months. Eliminating those not using reefs, we obtained 1,658 surveys from resident boaters who indicated they do use the reefs.

The distribution of resident reef users who responded to the survey is provided in the table below.

Boat Length Distributions of Resident Reef Users Who Responded to the 2000 Survey (Percent)

Boat Length Category Palm Beach Broward Miami-Dade Monroe Total

16' to 25' 11" 66 65 79 73 71 26' to 39' 11" 29 30 18 23 25 40' to 64' 11" 5 5 3 4 4 65' to 109' 11" 0 0 0 0 0 110' and Greater 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100

The number of registered boats in the county at least 16 feet long, that are owned by a county resident, and that carried parties to the reef in the last 12 months was estimated using the inventory of boat registrations furnished by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (2000). From this inventory, boats less than 16 feet and owners who live outside



of the county were excluded. The remaining number of boats in each county was multiplied by the proportion of survey respondents who said they used their boats on the county’s reefs in the last 12 months. The resulting target population of boats carrying parties that used the reefs at least once in the past 12 months is provided below.

Target Population of Resident Boats by County in Southeast Florida

County Total Registered Boats in County

Target Population - Number of Boats Carrying Parties

that Used the Reefs Palm Beach 56,924 19,463 Broward 61,124 23,854 Miami-Dade 67,936 30,695 Monroe 26,564 14,477

The sample data obtained from the survey was then used in combination with the target population of boats to estimate the total number of party-days spent using artificial and natural reefs off the coast of each county. The results are provided in Table 2.1.1-1. Reef-using respondents were asked to estimate their total days spent on or about the reefs over the last 12 months. For example, we estimated that resident boaters of Palm Beach County spent a total of 779,000 party-days on reefs over the last 12 months. Total party-days was estimated as follows. Palm Beach County survey respondents stated that they spent, on average, 40 days over the 12-month period using their boat to visit the reef system. The “40-days” was multiplied by the target population of boaters for Palm Beach County (i.e., 19,463 times 40 days). All other estimates of party-days for each county in Table 2.1.1-1 were derived in the same manner.

Miami-Dade County had the most party-days while Palm Beach County had the least party-days among the four counties evaluated. This was primarily due to the fact that Miami-Dade County has the largest number of boats in the target population. Among all counties, resident boaters spent over 3.8 million party-days using the reef system.



Table 2.1.1-1 (Residents) A Summary of Resident Boater User Activity on

Artificial and Natural Reefs in Southeast Florida, 2000 Total "Party-Days" on All Reefs

County Total Party-Days (Thousands) Percentage for Each County Palm Beach 779 20% Broward 930 24% Miami-Dade 1,105 29% Monroe 1,013 26% Total All Counties 3,827 100%

Total "Party-Days" on Artificial Reefs County Total Party-Days Percent Spent on Artificial Reefs in County Palm Beach 281 36% Broward 319 34% Miami-Dade 376 34% Monroe 345 34% Total All Counties 1,321 35%

Total "Party-Days" on Natural Reefs County Total Party-Days Percent Spent on Natural Reefs in County Palm Beach 497 64% Broward 612 66% Miami-Dade 729 66% Monroe 669 66% Total All Counties 2,507 65%

Total Person-Days on All Reefs (Thosands) County Total Person-Days Percentage for Each County Palm Beach 2,978 20% Broward 3,718 25% Miami-Dade 4,506 31% Monroe 3,379 23% Total All Counties 14,581 100%

Total “Person-Days” on Artificial Reefs County Total Person-Days Percent Spent on Artificial Reefs in County Palm Beach 1,075 36% Broward 1,281 34% Miami-Dade 1,540 34% Monroe 1,102 33% Total All Counties 4,998 34%

Total Person-Days on Natural Reefs County Total Person-Days Percent Spent on Natural Reefs in County Palm Beach 1,903 64% Broward 2,437 66% Miami-Dade 2,965 66% Monroe 2,277 67% Total All Counties 9,582 66% Note: A party-day is a one-day visit by a party of people. A person-day is a one-day visit by one individual.



Respondents were asked to distribute their reef activities by the type of reef used. Without much variation among counties, resident reef-users spent two-thirds of their party-days on natural as opposed to artificial reefs. Boater preference for natural reefs is hardly surprising, but it does show that artificial reefs are apparently substitutes for natural reefs. This is of interest to the artificial reef program managed by state and local officials.

The second half of Table 2.1.1-1 summarizes the estimated number of person-days for residents by county and reef type. For this estimate, we purposely netted out any nonresidents since they are, in fact, tourists. This is a significant factor in the Florida Keys, which attracts more friends and relatives from outside Monroe County than any other county in the study area. Using the results of the survey, the average resident party size was estimated to be 3.8 individuals. The total number of person-days per county is equal to the resident party size times the number of party-days per county. For all four counties, the number of person-days was estimated at 14.6 million. As expected, about two-thirds of these person-days were spent on natural as opposed to artificial reefs.

Respondents were then asked to breakdown their time on reefs by recreational activity. These activities were (l) fishing, (2) snorkeling and (3) scuba diving. Table 2.1.1-2 summarizes the breakdown of party-days by activity for all the counties. Alternatively, Table 2.1.1-3 shows the number of party-days and person-days broken down by this classification for each county separately.

Table 2.1.1-2 (Residents) Party-Days by Activity for All Counties

Activity Number of Party-Days Spent on Reef System by Activity

Percentage of Total Party-Days by Activity

Fishing 2,040,159 53% Snorkeling 911,293 24% Scuba Diving 875,758 23% Total 3,827,209 100%

Resident fishing constitutes about 53 percent of all resident party-days in the four county study area. Snorkeling and Scuba diving are almost evenly split in terms of the number of party-days, with snorkeling at 911 thousand and scuba diving at 876 thousand party days. Thus, reefs accommodate three rather important recreational activities as indicated in these two tables. These percentages remain similar for both artificial and natural reefs. That is, about two-thirds of fishing, snorkeling and scuba diving are spent on natural as opposed to artificial reefs using party-days as a measure of user activity. Person-days follow the same pattern as discussed for party-days. The activity tables will come into greater play as in other sections of this summary chapter. For now, the party-day is being used as a spending unit in conjunction with the information on party spending per day obtained from our sample survey of reef users.



Table 2.1.1-3 (Residents) Summary of the Kinds of Recreational Activities on Reefs in Southeastern Florida, 2000

(A) Party-Days (Thousands) All Reefs Artificial Reefs Natural Reefs

Kind of Activity

Total Party-Days

Each County’s Percentage of

Total Party-Days Total

Party-Days


Total Party-Days Total

Party-Days


Total Party-Days Fishing Palm Beach 405 20% 146 20% 259 20% Broward 512 25% 205 28% 307 24% Miami-Dade 597 29% 227 31% 370 28% Monroe 527 26% 158 21% 369 28% Total 2,040 100% 735 100% 1,305 100% Snorkeling Palm Beach 163 18% 77 29% 87 14% Broward 177 19% 39 15% 138 21% Miami-Dade 287 32% 80 30% 207 32% Monroe 284 31% 71 27% 213 33% Total 911 100% 267 100% 644 100% Scuba Diving Palm Beach 210 24% 59 19% 151 28% Broward 242 28% 75 24% 167 30% Miami-Dade 221 25% 69 22% 152 27% Monroe 203 23% 116 36% 87 16% Total 876 100% 318 100% 558 100%

(B) Person-Days (Thousands)

Kind of Activity

Total Person-

Days


Total Person-Days

Total Person-

Days


Total Person-Days

Total Person-

Days


Total Person-Days Fishing Palm Beach 1,551 19% 558 19% 992 19% Broward 2,154 27% 862 29% 1,292 25% Miami-Dade 2,578 32% 980 34% 1,598 31% Monroe 1,744 22% 523 18% 1,221 24% Total 8,027 100% 2,923 100% 5,103 100% Snorkeling Palm Beach 616 17% 290 27% 327 13% Broward 732 20% 161 15% 571 22% Miami-Dade 1,230 33% 344 32% 885 34% Monroe 1,104 30% 276 26% 828 32% Total 3,682 100% 1,071 100% 2,611 100% Scuba Diving Palm Beach 811 28% 227 23% 584 31% Broward 832 29% 258 26% 574 31% Miami-Dade 698 24% 216 22% 482 26% Monroe 531 18% 303 30% 228 12% Total 2,872 100% 1,004 100% 1,868 100%



2.1.2 Economic Contribution This section presents the economic contribution of resident reef-users to the economies of the counties in the study area. Economic contribution is measured in terms of the impact of expenditures by reef-users on county wages and employment. Regional economies grow by an expansion in their export industries. Export industries either sell goods and services to individuals outside the local economy or experience an injection of cash by visitors from outside the area. For example, boating visitors to Palm Beach County inject cash into this economy and stimulate economic growth. Such injections have a multiplier effect as discussed in the next section of the report under “Visitors”.

However, local spending is somewhat different in that it is a result of the expansion in many local export industries, not just the reef industry. As money circulates through the local economy, local residents receive income from this flow and use it to purchase goods and services such as boats, supplies, food, and fuel. Although resident spending on reef-related boating does not create multiplier effects that can be directly tied to the reefs, the existence of the reefs does keep money in the local economy. If the reef system did not exist off the coast of a particular county, residents may go elsewhere and spend their income. Generally, the more money kept in the local economy, the greater will be the multiplier effect of many local exports. In effect, reef-related spending by residents keeps the wages and employment in the home economy rather than exiting the economy as residents go elsewhere to recreate. It is this economic contribution that we seek to measure in this section.

The estimated economic contribution of reef-related expenditures by local residents is summarized in Table 2.1.2-1. For example, for the four counties in the study area, resident reef-users spent about $888 million during the 12-month period. This spending created about $118 million in wages and supported 7,416 employees. Without the artificial and natural reefs existing off the coasts of these counties, much of this spending might take place in other coastal counties. It is difficult to predict how many jobs might be lost without the existing reef system. However, given the intense demand for this kind of recreation, it is possible that losses would be considerable. Such potential losses were not estimated.

Estimated spending by resident reef-users was derived as follows using Palm Beach County as an example. In 2000, there were an estimated 779 party-days spent visiting the reefs off the coast of Palm Beach County as shown in Table 2.1.1-1. The mail survey respondents were asked to estimate their local spending per party-day.1 Spending per party-day was asked separately for fishing, snorkeling and scuba diving. The weighted average expenditures by residents for all these activities was then calculated as $251 per party-day and the average party size was 3.8 residents. Respondents were also asked to breakdown their reef-related expenditures into 12 categories that are discussed in detail below. These categories range from marina fees to eating in restaurants during a reef trip. Multiplying the number of party-days by resident spending per party-day, we arrive at $195.5 million (i.e. 779 times $251). This is the reef-related spending

1 This is why “party-day” is referred to as the spending unit.



estimate for Palm Beach County as summarized in Table 2.1.2-1.2 All other estimates of county aggregate expenditures in Table 2.1.2-1 were derived in the same manner.

Table 2.1.2-1 (Residents) A Summary of the Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Recreational Activities by

County in Southeast Florida, 2000 Economic Contribution: All Reefs

County Expenditures (Million 2000$)

County Expenditures as Percentage of Total Reef-

Related Expenditures

Employment (Full and

Part-Time Jobs) Wages

(Million 2000$) Palm Beach 195.5 22% 1,503 22.5 Broward 269.8 30% 2,473 37.6 Miami-Dade 275.5 31% 2,109 38.9 Monroe 147.5 17% 1,331 19.1 Total 888.3 100% 7,416 118.1

Economic Contribution: Artificial Reefs






(Million 2000$) Palm Beach 69.3 23% 536 8.0 Broward 90.9 30% 811 12.4 Miami-Dade 95.2 31% 724 13.4 Monroe 49.3 16% 449 6.4 Total 304.7 100% 2,520 40.2

Economic Contribution: Natural Reefs






(Million 2000$) Palm Beach 126.2 22% 968 14.0 Broward 178.9 31% 1,662 25.2 Miami-Dade 180.3 31% 1,385 25.6 Monroe 98.2 17% 882 12.7 Total 583.6 100% 4,896 77.5

2 The party size of 3.8 persons includes residents only. Actual party size is somewhat larger than 3.8

individuals because it includes nonresidents. In areas such as the Florida Keys (i.e., Monroe County), nonresidents may be up to a third of the actual party. Respondents were asked about the composition of their party in terms of residents and non-residents because the nonresident component is really part of the visitor sector. The goal of the resident section was to cover only residents of the county under study. The above procedure was used for all spending entries in Table 2.1.2-1.



Table 2.1.2-2 (Residents) A Summary of Estimated Expenditures by Reef-Related Recreational Activity

By Residents Off the Southeast Coast of Florida, 2000 Estimated Expenditures Per County

(Million 2000$) Recreational Activity Palm Beach Broward Miami-Dade Monroe

Total Expenditures

Percentage of Total

Expenditures

Fishing $121 $134 $165 $89 $509 57% Snorkeling $26 $52 $59 $33 $170 19% Scuba Diving $49 $84 $52 $25 $210 24% Total $196 $270 $276 $147 $889 100%

Estimated spending had to be translated into its generated wages and employment. The percent of wages generated by spending in certain industrial categories was obtained from the U.S. Census of Business (1997). For example, in Palm Beach County, spending on marinas generated $130 per employee annually expressed in 2000 dollars. Out of this spending, 11 percent goes to payments for wages or $15 per employee annually. Thus, if reef-related boating generated $130 (i.e., derived as outlined above) in spending, this would create one part or fulltime job paying $15 per year based on the labor market data from Palm Beach County. Using this method, Table 2.1.2-1 shows that the $195.5 million of spending in Palm Beach County generated a payroll for all reef-related spending of $22.0 million supporting 1,503 full and part-time employees.

It is of interest to breakdown spending between artificial and natural reefs. About two-thirds of all resident spending was related to natural reefs while the balance was attributed to artificial reefs. The distribution of spending is closely linked to the distribution of party-days and person-days discussed above. In addition, there was not much difference between party spending per day on artificial as opposed to natural reefs. Expenses such as marina fees, eating at restaurants and boat oil and gas will not vary depending upon the type of the reef. Any differences we found were assumed to be due to sampling error associated with smaller sample sizes (i.e., a further breakdown of categories reduces the sample size per category).

In terms of spending, there is a difference in spending per party-day depending on the kind of recreational activity on the reef system. In general, fishing is more expensive per day than various kinds of diving. Table 2.1.2-2 presents a breakdown of expenditures by county in terms of the kind of resident-related recreational pursuit involving the coastal reef system. Over all counties, expenditures on reef-related fishing were 57 percent of total spending on all activities. Scuba diving comprised 24 percent of total spending and snorkeling comprised 19 percent of total spending. Nearly $510 million was spent on reef-related fishing during the 12-month period (1999-2000). This was followed by spending on scuba diving of $210 million and $170 million on snorkeling.



The industries that benefit from resident expenditures for reef-related recreation are provided in Table 2.1.2-3. As discussed above, reef-users were asked to breakdown their total expenditures per party-day into 12 categories. These individual categories are shown in Table 2.1.2-3. Aggregate spending in each category was derived by multiplying average spending per party-day for that category by the number of party-days per year (i.e., Table 2.1.1-3). As might be expected, the greatest spending by reef users is for travel to and from the reef system and for boat storage. Thus, boat oil and gas; and marina fees are the two largest expenditures as shown in Table 2.2.2-3. In the four counties, reef users spent $224 million on boat oil and gas (i.e., travel to a reef) and $147 million on marina fees (i.e., large boat storage). These two items were nearly 42 percent of all reef-user spending. This was followed by expenditures on food and drink. Expenditures for food in restaurants and from stores constituted $88 million (10%) and $80 million (9%), respectively, of total spending.

The retention of resident spending by the existence of artificial and natural reefs in the four county area helps keep jobs in the local economy as discussed above. Table 2.2.2-3 illustrates which industries benefited from having reefs off the coast of these four counties. The Technical Appendix to this report contains a more detailed discussion of the data and methodology used to estimate the economic contribution of resident’s use of the reef system.

Table 2.1.2-3 (Residents) A Summary of the Economic Contribution by Expenditure Category for Reef Related

Recreational Activities for Southeast Florida, 2000 Total Itemized Expenditures by County

(Million 2000$)

Expenditure Category Palm

Beach Broward Miami-Dade Monroe

Total Expenditures

1. Boat Oil and Gas $50 $67 $67 $40 $224 2. Marina Slip Rentals and Dockage $35 $47 $53 $12 $147 3. Food and Beverages from Restaurants $16 $36 $17 $19 $88 4. Food and Beverages from Stores $15 $22 $26 $17 $80 5. Tackle $11 $25 $16 $12 $64 6. Bait $9 $12 $19 $9 $49 7. Gas for Auto $9 $10 $16 $5 $40 8. Ice $5 $6 $7 $6 $24 9. Equipment Rentals $5 $7 $7 $5 $24 10. Boat Ramp and Parking Fees $4 $5 $20 $2 $31 11. Sundries Such as Sun Screen,

Sickness Pills, etc. $5 $7 $7 $5 $24 12. All Other $32 $25 $20 $15 $92 Total Expenditures $196 $269 $275 $147 $887



2.1.3 Use Value This section provides a summary of the value that southeast Florida resident reef users place on being able to use the reefs in their existing condition. For technical details and alternative use value estimates, please see the technical appendix to this report

In general, use value is measured as the willingness of reef users to pay for a recreational day on the reef. Because reef-users are not charged a price to use the reefs, they receive all of the utility or satisfaction possible from a recreational reef day. Such satisfaction is by its very nature incremental. In other words, reef-users have higher use values for experiences associated with the reef than those who participate in the same activity without the reef. For example, fishers can fish in reef areas or non-reef areas of the Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of Mexico. However, most reef users feel that reefs are responsible for increasing catch rates. This is one factor that increases the satisfaction of the fishing day near the reefs. This phenomenon has been documented by Green (1984), Glassure (1987) and Bell (1992) to mention just a few studies using fishing as an example.

We asked the reef-using respondents a series of questions dealing with their willingness to pay for the reef program. The respondents were asked to consider the total cost of their last boating trip to Southeast Florida including travel expenses, lodging, and all boating expenses. Then, the respondent was asked the following:

“If your total cost per trip would have been $______ higher, would you have been willing to pay this amount to maintain the _______ (kind of reef) in their existing condition.”

Payment amounts (or cost increases) were put in the survey instrument on a random basis ($10, $50, $100, $200 and $500). Thus, some respondents received questions asking about a $10 increase while others were asked about a $50, $100 or even $500 increase in trip cost. Each respondent was asked for their willingness to pay to maintain the natural reefs and their willingness to pay to maintain the artificial reefs in their existing conditions. For the combined artificial and natural reef program, the payment amounts were doubled.

The purposes of these survey questions were to establish the use value per day from artificial and natural reefs. The expectation is that as the payment is increased, the percent of reef-users willing to pay the added cost would decline. If the percentage of respondents accepting the additional cost starts high and declines very gradually then the willingness to pay (WTP) or use value per trip is high for a particular kind of reef. Respondents were also given the option to say “NO” to all trip cost increases. It would be expected that the percentage of respondents answering “NO” to each cost increase (i.e., payment amount) would increase with the amount of payment since it would become too costly to maintain the reef system for recreational enjoyment at the higher payment values.

Two statistical procedures were used to analyze this question. One is called the Turnbull Distribution and the other is called Dichotomous Choice. An explanation of these procedures is



provided in the Technical Appendix to this report. The results using the Dichotomous Choice approach are presented in this Final Report.

The above willingness to pay question was asked in three forms: (l) natural reefs separately; (2) artificial reefs separately and (3) a combination of natural and artificial reefs. Since the primary spending unit is the “party”, we interpreted the willingness to pay response to an increase in trip cost to the entire party.

To estimate values per party per trip, the data were pooled for all counties. A logit model was used to estimate the values per-party-per-trip. The logit model tested for differences by county, activity, household income, age of respondent, years of boating experience in South Florida, race/ethnicity, sex, length of boat owned, and whether the respondent is a member of a fishing or diving club.

Separate models were estimated for each of the four reef programs (e.g., natural reefs, existing artificial reefs, natural & artificial reefs combined and new artificial reefs). For the natural reef, existing artificial reefs and the combined programs, the only significant differences found were for those with income greater than $100. This group had a higher willingness to pay than other reef users. There were no other differences found. The logit model did not produce different values per party per trip among counties. Also, because party sizes were not significantly different among the counties, the estimated values per person-trip were also the same across counties for each of the reef valuation programs. For residents, a person-trip is equal to one day. Therefore, a person-trip equals a person-day and a party-trip equals a party-day.

To estimate total annual use values for each county, we multiplied the number of party-days times the estimated values per party-day. We then estimated the value per person-day by dividing the total annual use value by the total number of person-days. This normalized value per person-day can be compared with results from other studies.

The results are consistent with the idea that natural reefs are preferred to artificial reefs. Across all counties, the average per person-day value of the natural reefs was $8.52 versus $2.99 for artificial reefs. Total use is also higher for natural versus artificial reefs. Across all counties, natural reef use by residents was over 9.6 million person-days versus about 5.0 million person-days for artificial reefs. This translated into an estimate of total annual use value by residents of about $82 million for natural reefs and $15 million for artificial reefs. Capitalizing the annual use values, using a three percent interest rate, yields asset values of about $2.7 billion for the natural reefs and about $500 million for the artificial reefs. These results are summarized in Table 2.1.3-1.

Annual use value represents the annual flow of total use value (i.e., the recreational benefits) to the reef-using public. From a public policy point of view, government spends money on the protection and management of the valuable resources of the natural and artificial reefs. This includes investments such as deployment of new artificial reefs and enhancements of natural reefs. In addition, government entities incur variable costs each year to support marine patrol, biologists, planners and even contracts with economists to help carry out the mission of



protecting the existing reef system. These costs can be compared with the annual flow of total use value of the reef to determine if this is indeed a wise investment.

The question combining the natural and artificial reef programs yielded estimates of value lower than that derived by adding-up the values of the natural and artificial reef programs separately. This result is consistent with past research. Some respondents are not willing to pay the sum of the values of the individual programs to finance the combined programs. This is largely due to the income constraints as higher bid values are provided to the respondents under the combined programs. The value of the combined programs would provide a conservative or lower bound estimate of the total natural and artificial reef values.

For the four counties combined, the best estimate is that the total resident use value per year for artificial and natural reefs expressed in 2000 dollars is $49.5 million. Thus, reef-users receive about $50 million dollars in recreational use value from participating in fishing, snorkeling and scuba diving near the reef systems compared to not having any reef system at all. Governmental authorities can consider this outcome as the economic benefits that could be sustained with proper maintenance of the existing reef system. On a county level, Miami-Dade has the largest flow of recreational value for the simple reason that they have more person-days, which results from a larger number of registered boats participating in the use of the reef system.

The estimates of use value for the reef system by county become important for public policy programs such as those that protect the existing reef resources. One kind of program involving “No-Take” zones will be discussed below. But, first, we consider the asset value of reefs.

All private land that is owned is rigorously assessed for real estate transactions and taxation. It is often suggested that public lands be sold or rented to private interests. However, little attention is given to what is called the “asset” value of natural resources and man-made resources. In this case, natural reefs are an illustration of the former while artificial reefs are an illustration of the latter.

The capitalized value of reef resources can be calcula ted by dividing the annual flow of user value by the real discount rate, which is approximately 3 percent. Private land owners and businesses do the same thing only they use the future flow of profits as their annual flow of economic benefits. The last column in Table 2.1.3-1 shows the capitalized value of artificial and natural reefs as calculated using this method. For example, the capitalized value of the artificial reef system deployed by government agencies and other interested groups is estimated to be about $500 million. Miami-Dade County once again has the largest capitalized value since this county also has the largest flow of use value benefits as discussed above. The natural reef system has a capitalized value of $2.7 billion or 5.4 times that of the artificial system. This is the case because the use value for natural reefs is much higher than artificial reefs. In addition, more than two-thirds of the total person-days spent on the total reef system are spent on natural reefs.



Table 2.1.3-1 (Residents) Annual Use Value and Capitalized Value Associated with

Resident Reef Use in Southeast Florida, 2000

County Total

Person-Days

Use Value Per Person-Day of Reef Use

Total Estimated Annual Use Value (Million Dollars)

Capitalized Value at 3% Discount Rate (Million Dollars)

Artificial And Natural Reefs Palm Beach 2,978,274 $3.38 $10.1 $335.8 Broward 3,718,019 $3.24 $12.0 $401.3 Miami-Dade 4,505,773 $3.17 $14.3 $476.6 Monroe 3,378,932 $3.88 $13.1 $437.1 Total 14,580,998 $3.40 $49.5 $1,650.8 Artificial Reefs Palm Beach 1,075,067 $2.96 $3.2 $106.1 Broward 1,280,601 $2.81 $3.6 $120.1 Miami-Dade 1,540,343 $2.76 $4.3 $141.6 Monroe 1,101,862 $3.54 $3.9 $129.9 Total 4,997,873 $2.99 $15.0 $497.7 Natural Reefs

Palm Beach 1,903,207 $8.50 $16.2 $539.3 Broward 2,437,418 $8.17 $19.9 $663.8 Miami-Dade 2,965,430 $8.01 $23.7 $791.3 Monroe 2,277,070 $9.56 $21.8 $725.7 Total 9,583,125 $8.52 $81.6 $2,720.1

Finally, some reef-users refuse to pay anything for their use of the reef in terms of increased trip costs. We sometimes call these “protestors” since they really would pay something, but just like to protest government in general. Policy makers will have to deal with this group when it comes to reef management budgets so it is wise to analyze the reasons given for saying “NO” to our hypothetical question. For respondents who answered no to the willingness-to-pay questions, their reasons for saying no are summarized in Table 2.1.3-2.



Table 2.1.3-2 (Residents) Reason Given by Respondents for "No" Answers to WTP Question

Reason for "No" Answer to WTP Question

Percentage of "NO" Responses for Artificial Reefs

Percentage of "NO" Responses for Natural Reefs

1. Government waste should be reduced to pay for water quality protection and management of the natural reefs.

17.10% 17.00%

2. Not Enough Information 11.10% 10.60%

3. Pay Too Much to Government Already 9.10% 9.80%

4. Reef Not Worth That Contribution 8.90% 2.60%

5. Cannot Calculate Reef Worth 4.70% 2.10%

6. Cannot Understand Question 1.90% 2.80%

7. No Water Quality Problems 1.60% 1.30%

8. Numerous Miscellaneous Concerns 45.60% 53.80%

For artificial reefs, negative reaction was concentrated on the feeling that there is too much government waste already to impose additional cost on users. This was the feeling of natural reef users as well. In addition, some reef users who responded no to the willingness-to-pay questions felt that there was not enough information provided with the question and that they already pay too much to government. Other artificial reef users felt that reef preservation is not worth the incremental trip cost presented to them while natural reef users were less concerned with this cost.

Government programs dealing with reef recreation may be divided into two areas. The first area is the maintenance of the existing artificial and natural reef system. This was the object of the first three willingness-to-pay questions aimed at determining use value of the existing reef system. The second area is that government may add artificial reefs to the existing system.

The resident survey included a question to solicit resident reef users’ willingness-to-pay for new artificial reefs. The question is as follows.

Local and state government agencies are being asked to evaluate how users of artificial reefs value new artificial reefs. Artificial reef programs cost money. Suppose that the government proposed that all users of the artificial reefs would pay for all newly constructed reefs. Fishermen and divers with their own boats would pay for a decal as part of their boat registration and/or, if they used a charter/party boat or a rental boat (pay operation), they would pay for the costs through higher fees charged by the pay operation. The money would go into a



trust fund that could only be used for the construction and maintenance of artificial reefs in southeast Florida.

14. Would you be willing to pay $ ________ per year when you renew your boat registration and/or the amount in higher fees to a charter/party boat or rental boat operation to fund this program?

Payment amounts of $5, $10, $20, $30, $50 and $100 were assigned randomly. The survey results were statistically analyzed using the logit model.

The logit model estimated for the new artificial reef program found some statistically significant differences. Residents in Palm Beach and Broward counties had higher willingness-to-pay than those from Miami-Dade and Monroe counties. Snorkelers and scuba divers had higher values than those who participated in fishing activities. The only other statistically significant variable was household income. As household income levels increased so did willingness-to-pay for new artificial reefs. On a per party per day basis, the estimated values ranged from a high of $3.60 for snorkelers and scuba divers from Palm Beach and Broward counties to a low of $0.63 for those who participated in fishing activities off Miami-Dade and Monroe counties.

As with the other three programs, the estimated per party per day values were multiplied by the total party-days spent on artificial reefs by artificial reefs users in each county to get total annual use value for each county. The total annual use values were then divided by the total annual person-days of artificial reef use in each county to get an estimate of the value per person-day. Again, this normalized value per person-day can be compared with results from other studies.

On a per person-day basis, the estimated values ranged from a low of 28 cents in Miami-Dade County to a high of 72 cents in Palm Beach County. Across all four counties, the average was 49 cents per person-day of reef use.

Table 2.1.3-3 (Residents) Estimated Resident Use Value of Investing in and Maintaining “New” Artificial Reefs

County

Total Person-Days for

Artificial Reefs

Use Value Per Person-Day of

Artificial Reef Use

Total Estimated Annual Use Value (Million Dollars)

Capitalized Value at 3% Discount Rate (Million Dollars)

Palm Beach 1,075,067 $0.72 $0.777 $25.9 Broward 1,280,601 $0.60 $0.762 $25.4

Miami-Dade 1,540,343 $0.28 $0.436 $14.5 Monroe 1,101,862 $0.42 $0.467 $15.6

Total 4,997,873 $0.49 $2.442 $81.4

The addition of “new” artificial reefs is estimated to add $2.4 million to the use value for resident artificial reef-users in the four-county area. This program will add a capitalized value of $81.4



million dollars to an artificial reef system worth nearly $500 million according to our estimates in Table 2.1.3-1. Even though Miami-Dade County had the highest amount of artificial reef use, it did not have the highest total annual use value because of the relatively low value per person-day. For government benefit/cost analysis, the annual use value would be compared to the annual cost of artificial reef deployment and associated maintenance and administration costs.

It is of interest that slightly over 75 percent of the respondents refused to pay the amount given to them in the question for additional artificial reefs. Of course, these amounts varied from $10 to $100 per year. Those answering “NO” to the increased annual cost felt that government should fund this program out of general revenue (15.5 percent) rather than levy a specific tax on reef-users. Other “protestors” felt that there was presently too much government waste (13.3 percent) and that the increased cost was more than the new reef would be worth (10.6 percent). Finally, the theme that government already receives too much in taxes was repeated by 8.3 percent of the respondents.

2.1.4 Role of “No-Take” Zones Reefs play a vital role in the entire oceanic ecosystem by providing habitat and protection for young fish and other creatures. A no-take zone is a designated area of the reef systems in which nothing is to be taken from this area, including fish and shellfish. To provide a net benefit, it is argued that “no-take” zones would actually increase the total pie available to users. Supporters of “no-take” zones point to the overuse of common property resources such as ocean fisheries by both recreational and commercial interests. In effect, “no-take” zones would vest the property right with the government. In theory, “no-take” zones would increase fish and coral populations to the carrying capacity of the specified area with benefits spilling over into areas used by recreational and even commercial users. Some question these alleged benefits and opposed the imposition of such zones. Therefore, as part of this study, we were asked to obtain the opinion of resident artificial and natural reef-users regarding “no-take” zones as management tools. The results are shown in Table 2.1.4-1.

Under the National Marine Sanctuary Act, 23 areas or zones were created where the taking of anything including fish and shellfish has been prohibited since 1997 in the Florida Keys. It is reasonable to assume that residents of neighboring counties may have formed an opinion about this management effort. Apparently, it is a favorable opinion because of the respondents surveyed from the four counties, about three quarters support “no-take” zones in the Florida Keys. However, do respondents want this management tool used in “their own backyard”? Although somewhat less supportive, between 57 percent and 65 percent of all respondents support the use of “no-take” zones off their county shores. Since the Florida Keys are in Monroe County, we asked the residents of that county whether they would be willing to support additional “no-take” zones off their county. Nearly 60 percent were still in favor of extending this management tool to additional areas.



Table 2.1.4-1 (Residents) A Summary of the Opinion of Resident Reef-Users on "No Take" Zones in Southeast

Florida, 2000 Question: "Support "No Take" Zones in the Florida Keys"

County


Answering "Yes"


Answering "No"


Answering "Don't Know" Palm Beach 75.7% 14.5% 9.8% Broward 74.9% 17.9% 7.2% Miami-Dade 73.6% 18.8% 7.6% Monroe 78.1% 17.9% 3.8% Question: "Support "No Take" Zones on Some Reefs in Your County"

County


Answering "Yes"


Answering "No"


Answering "Don't Know" Palm Beach 65.1% 22.9% 11.9% Broward 63.4% 26.6% 9.7% Miami-Dade 60.6% 27.7% 10.6% Monroe1 56.9% 20.5% 21.9% Question: "Support "No Take" Zones on Some Reefs Off Palm Beach, Miami-Dade

and Broward Counties"

County


Answering "Yes"


Answering "No"


Answering "Don't Know" Palm Beach 64.7% 21.2% 13.9% Broward 63.9% 23.9% 12.1% Miami-Dade 61.4% 27.6% 9.7% Monroe 44.3% 38.5% 16.9% Question: "What Percentage of Coral or Natural Reefs in Your County Would Be

Reasonable to Protect Using "No Take" Zones?" County Average Percentage Median Percentage Palm Beach 29.9% 20.0% Broward 35.0% 25.0% Miami-Dade 30.0% 20.0% Monroe 32.0% 20.0% 1 Since Monroe County already has "no take" zones, the word "additional" was inserted into this question for Monroe County

surveys.

Since resident reef-users in the Florida Keys have been the subject of this experiment, it is indeed impressive that they are convinced enough of the “net benefits theory” to extend this management tool to other areas off the shores of their counties. A clear majority of the respondents in three of the four counties were in favor of having “no-take” zones (e.g. Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties). Only 44.3 percent of the respondents in Monroe



County were in favor of extending such zones northward. It is not clear why the “no-take” zones in northern areas lost majority support by the resident respondents in Monroe County.

Finally, we asked what percentage of natural reefs should be protected using this management tool. Respondents from all counties indicated on average that 30 percent to 35 percent of natural reefs should be protected using this method. This gives the regulatory authority some idea of what reef-users feel is reasonable regarding this protection strategy.

However, the imposition of “no-take” zones is not necessarily consistent with maximizing net benefits to all users. This is still under study in the Florida Keys and elsewhere in the world. Since averages may be skewed by exceptionally larger answers, we also looked at the median answer (i.e., half the distance between the highest and lowest answer). The median was much lower than the average reported above and ranged from 20 percent to 25 percent. This may be a better estimate to use since it is both conservative and minimizes the influence of high and low responses including protest responses (e.g. respondents that answer no or zero to every proposal). Apparently, reef-users endorse the idea of the “no-take” zones and desire over 20 percent of the existing natural reefs to be designated off limits to recreational activity to benefit the entire group of reef-users. Such a result provides public officials with information important to the management of the reef system from Palm Beach to Monroe County.

2.1.5 Demographic Information The mail survey included questions regarding demographic characteristics of respondents. The reason for collecting this type of information is to determine just what segment of the population will benefit from deploying artificial reefs, continued preservation of natural reefs and/or designating “no-take” zones as discussed in the last section. Respondents were asked to provide some background on both themselves and their boating experience. Table 2.1.5-1 provides the results from the mail survey combined with comparable information for the counties in the study area.

In general, owners of registered boats who use the reef system are older than the general population as measured by the median age. In Monroe County, the age difference is quite substantial. Among the four counties, the average respondent is predominately male. For example, 93 percent of respondents in Miami-Dade County were male compared to 48.4 percent in the general population of that county.

With respect to race, boat owners responding to the survey were predominately white in all counties. Palm Beach County had the highest percentage of boat owners who indicated they were white at 97 percent while none of the respondents indicated they were black. This is consistent with county data showing Palm Beach with the lowest percentage of blacks in the population among the four counties surveyed. As a percent of the population, those respondents identifying themselves as Hispanic/Latino were less than 7 percent except in Miami-Dade County where nearly 33 percent of the respondents were in this category. This distribution follows the Hispanic/Latino concentration in each county except that as a percentage of registered boat owners it is lower than countywide percentages.



For all the counties, about one-half of the respondents had completed college or a more advanced degree. This is higher than the percentage of individuals that have completed these education levels in the general population for 1990.3 Although these percentages have certainly risen for the general public since 1990, there is no question that boat owners responding to the survey are more highly educated than the general population. The reason for this statement is the very high correlation between education and income. The median income level reported by boat owners in the survey is much higher than the general population in all counties in the study area. The median household income reported by respondents is nearly double that of the general population. Of course, the purchase of a relatively large pleasure craft is associated with higher income as found by Bell and Leeworthy (1986). Thus, boat owners tend to be older, affluent white males with a higher degree of education.

The results of the survey were also used to estimate the lower bound on how many residents in the four county area participated in reef-using recreational activities. This was done by multiplying the number of estimated reef-using boats by the average size of the party. In the four-county area, it was estimated that there are 88,489 registered boats that use the reef system with an average party size of 3.83 individuals per trip. Therefore, there are 338,913 residents, at a minimum, that participated in reef-based outdoor recreation. The term “minimum” is used because the turnover rate of the parties is unknown. That is, the same residents may not go boating on every trip. Therefore, 3,801,268 residents 15 years and older in the four county area can be characterized as the population from which the boating party is drawn. At a minimum, an estimated 8.8 percent of this population might be engaged in recreation, based upon the use of the artificial and natural reef system. This may be useful in answering questions of public policy dealing with just how many and what percent of the population may gain from programs directed at the reef system.

Finally, we obtained information on what is called the “boater profile”. This is included in Table 2.1.5-2. The average reef-using boater has lived in his or her present county from 16 (Monroe) to 33 (Miami-Dade) years. In addition, the average resident boater has been boating from his or her county of residence for almost as long. The average boat owned by the reef-users ranges from 23 feet in length in Miami-Dade County to 25 feet in length in both Palm Beach and Broward Counties. These sample values are comparable to the average size of boats over 16 feet in length in the boat registration database, which average 25 feet long. Finally, from 15.4 percent (Monroe) to 19.9 percent (Palm Beach) of the reef using population are members of fishing and/or diving clubs.

3 1990 was the last time the U.S. Census Bureau obtained educational levels at the county level.



Table 2.1.5-1 (Residents) A Summary of the Demographic Characteristics of Reef-Users in Southeast Florida, 2000 Median Age of Respondent Reef-Users County Population

Palm Beach 48 45.5 Broward 48 39.8 Miami-Dade 46 35.9 Monroe 54 41.0

Reef-Users County Population Sex Of Respondent Male Female Male Female Palm Beach 91.10% 8.90% 48.00% 52.00% Broward 92.10% 7.90% 48.10% 51.90% Miami-Dade 93.50% 6.50% 48.40% 51.60% Monroe 85.60% 14.40% 50.60% 49.40%

Reef-Users County Population Race Of Respondent White Black Other White Black Other Palm Beach 97.30% 0% 2.70% 79.10% 13.80% 7.10% Broward 93.10% 2.20% 4.80% 70.60% 20.50% 8.90% Miami-Dade 87.90% 1.30% 10.80% 69.70% 20.30% 10.00% Monroe 93.60% 0.20% 6.20% 90.70% 2.30% 7.00%

Percent Hispanic/Latino Reef-Users County Population

Palm Beach 4.30% 12.40% Broward 4.70% 15.50% Miami-Dade 32.70% 57.30% Monroe 6.80% 15.80%

Education Level: Percentage Completed College Or More Reef-Users County Population1

Palm Beach 52.50% 16.20% Broward 49.60% 13.40% Miami-Dade 56.70% 12.40% Monroe 56.60% 16.70%

Median Household Income Reef-Users County Population

Palm Beach $71,695 $39,560 Broward $72,310 $37,431 Miami-Dade $69,722 $36,846 Monroe $56,393 $31,922 1 Latest available data on educational level by county is for 1990.



Table 2.1.5-2 (Residents) Boater Profile of Reef-Users in Southeast Florida, 2000

Average Years Living in County County Average Years

Palm Beach 23 Broward 26 Miami-Dade 33 Monroe 16

Average Years Boating in South Florida County Average Years


Average Length of Boat Used for Salt Water Activities County Average Length


Percentage of Respondents That Belong to Fishing and/or Diving Clubs County Percent

Palm Beach 19.9% Broward 18.9% Miami-Dade 17.7% Monroe 15.4%

2.2 Visitors The focus of this section is the socioeconomic value of the reefs associated with visitors to each of the four southeast Florida counties. As defined in Chapter 1, Introduction, visitors to a county are defined as nonresidents of the county that they are visiting. For example, a person from Broward County visiting the Florida Keys in Monroe County is considered to be a visitor to Monroe County. Likewise, a person from New York visiting the Florida Keys is considered to be a visitor to Monroe County.

This section provides the following information regarding visitors to each of the four counties: reef user activity, economic contribution of the reefs, use value of the reefs and demographic information.



2.2.1 User Activity The activity of reef users is summarized in person-days of reef use. For visitors, the number of person-trips to use the reefs is also of interest. In order to measure person-days and person-trips associated with reef use, the total number of person-trips by all visitors to each county must be estimated. Total visitation includes visits to a county by non-residents of that county to participate in any activity be it recreation, business or family matters. The total number of person-trips by all visitors to the county was estimated using the Capacity Utilization Model. This model uses a variety of information obtained from the counties and the responses to the General Visitor Survey.

The model uses the following information for each county. The number of hotel/motel rooms in each county dur ing the study period (June 2000 to May 2001) and the average hotel/motel occupancy rate during the summer and winter of the same study period was obtained from the counties. Summer is defined from June 2000 to November 2000 and winter is defined from December 2000 to May 2001. The model also requires estimates of average party size for those using hotel and motel accommodations, the average trip length in nights for those staying in hotels/motels, and the proportion of visitors who stay in hotels/motels. This information was obtained from the general visitor survey responses.

The equation for the Capacity Utilization Model is as follows.

Total Number of Person-Trips by All Visitors to the County During a Season =

(Hotel/Motel Occupancy Rate times Number of Hotel/Motel Rooms times

183 Days in the Season times Average Party Size for those Using Hotels/Motels)

divided by

Average Trip Length in Nights for those staying in Hotels/Motels

divided by

Proportion of Visitors who stay at Hotels/Motels

The results for each of the four counties are provided in Table 2.2.1-1 and Table 2.2.1-2, for the summer and winter seasons, respectively.



Table 2.2.1-1 (Visitors) Results of Capacity Utilization Model

Calculation of Number of Person-Trips to County Summer Season (June 2000 to November 2000)

Summer Variable Palm Beach Broward Miami-Dade Monroe Hotel/Motel Occupancy Rate (k)a 0.629 0.662 0.660 0.673 Average Number of Hotel/Motel Rooms During the Year (R) b 16,076 28,600 48,000 8,916

Number of Days in Season (p) 183 183 183 183 Average Size of Party for those using hotels/motels (SP)c 1.80 2.55 2.86 2.65

Average Trip Length in Nights for those staying in hotels/motels (LS)d 3.99 6.26 5.94 4.03

Proportion of Visitors who stay at hotels/motels (g)e 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.56

Estimated Number of Person Trips by Visitors who used hotels/motels = k x R x p x SP / LS

832,110 1,404,824 2,782,827 720,322

Estimated Total Number of Person Trips by All Visitors to County = k x R x p x SP / LS / g

1,938,327 3,314,292 6,574,428 1,288,464

a Palm Beach County - For year ending September 30, 2000; Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties - For calendar year 2000. Sources: Palm Beach County Tourist Development Council, Greater Fort Lauderdale Convention and Visitors Bureau, Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau; Monroe County Tourist Development Council. All rates are from Smith Travel Research.

b Data represent 1999. Source: Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. c From General Visitor Survey responses to Question 25 for parties who stayed in hotels/motels and party size was five or

fewer people.

d From General Visitor Survey responses to Questions 8 (On this trip, how many nights will you have spent in county?) for those respondents who stayed at hotels/motels on this trip.

e From General Visitor Survey responses to Question 10 (Where are you staying on this trip?). Proportion equal to number of respondents staying at hotel or motel divided by all respondents. All respondents include all accommodation modes and day-trippers (no accommodation) and exclude cruise ship passengers who disembark at Key West for a day trip.



Table 2.2.1-2 (Visitors) Results of Capacity Utilization Model

Calculation of Number of Person-Trips to County Winter Season (December 2000 to May 2001)

Winter Variable Palm Beach Broward Miami-Dade Monroe Hotel/Motel Occupancy Rate (k)a 0.744 0.763 0.738 0.730 Average Number of Hotel/Motel Rooms During the Year (R) b 16,076 28,600 48,000 8,916

Number of Days in Season (p) 183 183 183 183 Average Size of Party for those using hotels/motels (SP)c 1.92 2.35 2.24 2.46

Average Trip Length in Nights for those staying in hotels/motels (LS)d 8.28 5.00 6.27 5.08

Proportion of Visitors who stay at hotels/motels (g)e 0.22 0.31 0.38 0.46

Estimated Number of Person Trips by Visitors who used hotels/motels = k x R x p x SP / LS

506,882 1,873,450 2,306,184 575,605

Estimated Total Number of Person Trips by All Visitors to County = k x R x p x SP / LS / g

2,313,013 6,088,714 6,039,217 1,263,466

Note: See Table 2.2.1-1 for footnotes.

The number of person-trips for the year 2000-2001 is summarized in Table 2.2.1-3 for each county. The number of cruise ship passengers who disembarked at Key West during the study period was added to the number of person-trips for Monroe County. The number of cruise ship passengers docking at Key West by month was obtained from the Monroe County Tourist Development Council. These numbers were multiplied by an estimate of the proportion of passengers who actually disembark to visit Key West for a half-day (0.9883 for summer and 0.9547 for winter). This proportion was obtained from Leeworthy, 1996 and is based on a NOAA study of cruise ship passengers in Key West.



Table 2.2.1-3 (Visitors) Number of Person-Trips to Each County

All Visitors June 2000 to May 2001

Number of Person-Trips (millions) County Summer - 00 Winter – 01 Total

Palm Beach 1.94 2.31 4.25 Broward 3.31 6.09 9.40 Miami-Dade 6.57 6.04 12.61 Monroea 1.51 1.60 3.11 Total 13.33 16.04 29.37 a Includes cruise ship passengers who disembark at Key West for day trip.

Next, the number of person-trips was converted to number of person-days. For each county, the number of person-trips, as presented on the last rows of Tables 2.2.1-1 and 2.2.1-2 (net of cruise ship passengers), was distributed to the different types of accommodation modes and day-trippers. This distribution was based on the general survey responses to Question 10 (Where are you staying on this trip?) and Question 8 (On this trip, how many nights will you have spent?). The proportions of respondents by accommodation are provided in Table 2.2.1-4.

Table 2.2.1-4 (Visitors) Proportion of General Visitor Respondents Surveyed by Accommodation

County Palm Beach Broward Miami-Dade Monroe

Accommodation Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter

Day Trippers 0.12 0.20 0.13 0.21 0.25 0.34 0.15 0.09 Hotel/Motel/Guest House/Bed & Breakfast 0.43 0.22 0.42 0.31 0.42 0.38 0.56 0.46

Home of Family and Friends 0.36 0.40 0.32 0.24 0.27 0.18 0.07 0.07

Campground 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.16 0.32 Condominium or Second Home (own)

0.08 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03

Vacation Rental 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 Time Share 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 Total 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No. of Respondents 396 397 486 260 378 364 635 529

Then, for each accommodation mode and the day-trippers, the number of person-trips was multiplied by average number of days per trip from Question 8. The average number of days per



trip is provided in Table 2.2.1-5. Then the number of person-trips by accommodation mode and day-trippers was summed over all accommodation modes and day-trippers. The numbers of cruise ship passengers who disembark at Key West for the day were added to the Monroe County results. The numbers of person-days all visitors spent in each county are presented in Table 2.2.1-6.

Table 2.2.1-5 (Visitors) Average Number of Days Per Trip by Accommodation

General Visitor Survey County – Summer County – Winter

Accommodation Palm Beach Broward

Miami-Dade Monroe

Palm Beach Broward

Miami-Dade Monroe

Day Trippers 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hotel/Motel/Guest House/Bed & Breakfast

4.99 7.26 6.94 5.03 9.28 6.00 7.27 6.08

Home of Family and Friends 8.46 10.79 10.31 5.36 11.66 10.24 12.44 6.26

All Other Accommodationsa 17.83 9.02 12.39 5.03 40.85 21.06 16.03 11.54 a All Other Accommodations include campground, condo or second home, vacation rental and time-share. Source: General Visitor Survey responses to Question 8 (on this trip, how many nights have you spent in this county) plus 1.

Table 2.2.1-6 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Spent in Each County

All Visitors June 2000 to May 2001

Number of Person-Days (Millions) County Summer - 00 Winter - 01 Total Palm Beach 13.41 33.44 46.85 Broward 25.94 58.69 84.63 Miami-Dade 44.19 56.43 100.62 Monroea 5.54 6.60 12.13 Total 89.08 155.16 244.23 a Includes cruise ship passengers who disembark at Key West for day trip.

The number of person-trips by all visitors is used as the basis for estimating the number of person-days visitors spent using the artificial and natural reefs in each county. For each season, the number of boating person-trips is equal to the total number of person-trips by all visitors times the proportion of person-trips taken by visitors who participated in saltwater boating in the county in the past twelve months. This proportion was taken from the General Visitor Survey answer to Question 13 (Which activities and boating modes did you participate in over the past



12 months in this county?) for one boating activity per respondent divided by the total number of respondents.

To get the number of boating person-trips when the person used the reefs, the number of boating person-trips is multiplied by the proportion of boating person-trips when the respondent used the reefs. This proportion was obtained from the Visitor Boater Screening Tally sheets. These sheets indicated the proportion of boaters intercepted who used the reefs at least once in the past 12 months. The results for the summer, winter and the year are summarized in Tables 2.2.1-7 to 2.2-9.

Table 2.2.1-7 (Visitors) Person-Trips of Visitors Who Boated

And Visitors Who Used the Reefs Over the Past 12 Months Summer 2000

Summer – June 2000 to November 2000

County

Total Person Trips to

County - All Visitors

Proportion of Person Trips

Taken By Visitors Who Boateda

Boating Person Trips

Proportion of Boating Person Trips When

the Reef was Used for Recreationb

Boating Person Trips When the Reef was Used for Recreation

Palm Beach 1,938,327 0.16 306,304 0.98 299,522 Broward 3,314,292 0.20 668,204 0.99 663,312 Miami-Dade 6,574,428 0.28 1,843,418 0.91 1,682,421 Monroe 1,513,099 0.33 502,031 0.90 450,077 Total 13,340,147 3,319,957 3,095,332 a Saltwater Boating Only. From General Visitor Survey Answer to Question 13 (Which activities_modes did you participate in

over the past 12 months in this county) for one boating activity divided by total number of respondents. b From the Visitor Boater Tally Sheets: = 1 - (Q6/(Q6+Q7+Q8+Q10))


And Visitors Who Used the Reefs Over the Past 12 Months Winter 2001

Winter - December 2000 to May 2001

County






Proportion of Boating Person Trips When

the Reef was Used for Recreationb


Palm Beach 2,313,013 0.14 330,430 0.98 323,115 Broward 6,088,714 0.19 1,145,612 0.99 1,137,225 Miami-Dade 6,039,217 0.13 768,919 0.91 701,764 Monroe 1,596,298 0.26 413,226 0.90 370,462 Total 16,037,242 2,658,187 2,532,566 Note: See Table 2.2.1-7 for an explanation of the footnotes.




And Visitors Who Used the Reefs Over the Past 12 Months June 2000 to May 2001

Year Round - June 2000 to May 2001

County Total Person Trips –

All Visitors Boating

Person Trips

Boating Person Trips When the Reefs Were Used for Recreation

Palm Beach 4,251,341 636,734 622,637 Broward 9,403,006 1,813,816 1,800,537 Miami-Dade 12,613,645 2,612,337 2,384,185 Monroe 3,109,397 915,257 820,539 Total 29,377,389 5,978,144 5,627,898

Next, the total number of person-days that visitor boaters who used the reefs spent visiting the county was estimated. This estimate is the total boating person-trips when reefs were used times the average days per visit by boaters who use the reefs. The average days per visit by boaters who used the reefs was obtained from the answers to Question 10 of the Visitor Boater Survey (How many nights are you spending on this trip?) where a 1 was added to each answer to represent number of days. The average number of days and the total person days reef users spent in the county in 2000-2001 are provided in Table 2.2.1-10 for each county.

Table 2.2.1-10 (Visitors) Average Number of Days Visiting County

And Total Person-Days in County By Visitor Boaters Who Used the Reefs

County Average Days Visiting the County Per Trip

Total Person-Days Spent Visiting the County

Palm Beach 5.36 3,336,923 Broward 8.47 15,252,053 Miami-Dade 7.58 18,068,870 Monroe 8.39 6,887,497 Total 43,545,343

To allocate the total person-days spent visiting the county to actual days using the artificial and natural reefs, the daily participation rates of the different boating activities were calculated using the responses to Questions 12, 15, 16 and 17 of the Visitor Boater Survey. Participation rate is the proportion of total days that respondents spent in the county in the last 12 months when the respondent actually participated in a saltwater activity and boat mode. It represents the probability that a visitor boater who uses the reefs will participate in a particular saltwater boating activity and boating mode on any given day.



Question 12 asked the respondent to examine a list of saltwater boating activities and boat modes and read the number corresponding to the activity-boat mode that he/she or someone in his/her party participated in over the past 12 months. The saltwater activity-boat mode list is provided in Appendix B with the Visitor Boater Survey. Question 13 asked if the respondent participated in the activity and boating mode. Question 15 asked how many days in the past 12 months that the respondent participated in the activity-boat mode. From the responses to these questions, the proportions of total visiting days respondents actually spent participating in the activity-boat mode were obtained.

To allocate the total number of days in an activity-boat mode to the use of artificial reefs versus natural reefs versus no reefs, the proportion of fishing days and the proportion of dives spent on each reef/no reef was calculated from the Visitor Boater Survey responses. Question 16 asked the respondent how many days he/she spent on the artificial reef and Question 17 asked the respondent how many days he/she spent on the natural reef. For scuba divers and snorkelers, Question 18 asked for the total number of dives and Questions 19 and 20 asked for the number of dives on artificial versus natural reefs. A dive is defined as exiting and reentering the boat and applies to both divers and snorkelers. From the responses to these questions, the proportions of fishing days spent on the artificial and natural reefs and the proportions of dives spent on the artificial and natural reefs were obtained. For fishing charter and party boats, the proportion of days spent on artificial versus natural versus no reefs was taken from the fishing-related responses to the charter/party boat operator survey.

The proportions of visitor days that visitor boaters who use the reefs participated in fishing and diving/snorkeling are presented in Tables 2.2.1-11 and 2.2.1-12. These tables also provide the proportion of fishing days and scuba/snorkeling dives that visitor boaters spent on the artificial, natural and no reefs. For example, visitor boaters who came to Broward County to use the reefs spent 27 percent of their visiting days participating in saltwater fishing from a charter, party, rental or private boat. Of these fishing days, 47 percent of days were spent fishing near artificial reefs, 52 percent of days were spent fishing near natural reefs and 1 percent of days were spent fishing near no reefs. In Palm Beach County, visitor boaters who came to the county to use the reefs spent 32 percent of their visiting days scuba diving or snorkeling. Of these diving/snorkeling days, 25 percent of days were spent on artificial reefs, 74 percent of days were spent on natural reefs, and 1 percent of days were spent on no reefs.

Table 2.2.1-11 (Visitors) Percent of Visitor Person-Days That Reef-Using Boaters Went Saltwater Fishing

And Percent of Fishing Days Spent on Artificial, Natural and No Reefs From Visitor Boater Survey

Percent of Fishing Days on:

County Total

Respondents

Percent of Visitor

Days Artificial

Reefs Natural Reefs No Reefs

Sum of Proportions

Palm Beach 490 10% 21% 45% 34% 100% Broward 252 27% 47% 52% 1% 100% Miami-Dade 339 22% 24% 61% 15% 100% Monroe 1,392 26% 20% 40% 40% 100% Note: Boating Modes are Charter, Party, Rental, and Private (Own or Friend’s) Boat.



Table 2.2.1-12 (Visitors) Percent of Visitor Person-Days That Reef-Using Boaters Went Scuba Diving or Snorkeling

And Percent of Diving/Snorkeling Dives Spent on Artificial, Natural and No Reefs From Visitor Boater Survey

Percent of Dives on:

County Total

Respondents

Percent of Visitor

Days Artificial

Reefs Natural Reefs No Reefs

Sum of Proportions

Palm Beach 490 32% 25% 74% 1% 100% Broward 252 22% 51% 48% 1% 100% Miami-Dade 339 8% 32% 65% 3% 100% Monroe 1,392 17% 16% 80% 4% 100% Note: Boating Modes are Charter, Party, Rental, and Private (Own or Friend’s) Boat.

The number of person-days spent in each saltwater boating activity-boat mode was estimated as the total person days reef-using boaters spent visiting the county in year 2000-2001 (from Table 2.2.1-10) times the proportion of visitor days that these visitors spent participating in each activity-boat mode. Then the number of person-days spent in each saltwater boating activity-boat mode was allocated to artificial and natural reefs based on either the proportion of days or the proportion of dives spent in that activity-boat mode on or near artificial versus natural reefs. Proportion of days was used for all activities except scuba diving and snorkeling where the proportion of dives was used to provide a more accurate indicator of reef use.

A summary of the total person-days that visitors spent participating in all activity-boat modes by type of reef is provided in Table 2.2.1-13. A summary of total person days visitors spent participating in each activity for each county is provided in Tables 2.2.1-14 through Tables 2.2.1-17. The total person-days visitors spent participating in all saltwater activities and boat modes by type of reef is provided in Tables 2.2.1-18 to 2.2.1-21 for each county.

Table 2.2.1-13 (Visitors) Total Person-Days Visitors Spent on Artificial and Natural Reefs by County

June 2000 to May 2001 (Millions) Number of Visitor Person Days on:

County Artificial Reefs Natural Reefs All Reefs Palm Beach 0.33 0.93 1.26 Broward 2.69 3.03 5.72 Miami-Dade 1.41 3.25 4.66 Monroe 0.48 1.60 2.08 All Counties 4.91 8.81 13.72

Visitors to the four counties spent about 14 million person-days on the reef systems of southeast Florida from June 2000 to May 2001. About 5 million of these days were spent on artificial reefs and about 9 million of these days were spent on natural reefs.



Table 2.2.1-14 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Spent Using Artificial and Natural Reefs

By Recreation Activity – Palm Beach County Number of Person-Days

Activity Artificial Reefs Natural Reefs All Reefs Snorkeling 36,940 90,544 127,484 Scuba Diving 237,921 681,802 919,723 Fishing 55,252 158,329 213,580 Glass Bottom Boat Sightseeing 0 0 0 Total 330,112 930,675 1,260,787


By Recreation Activity – Broward County Number of Person-Days

Activity Artificial Reefs Natural Reefs All Reefs Snorkeling 87,669 266,717 354,386 Scuba Diving 1,587,123 1,433,074 3,020,197 Fishing 1,003,641 1,289,745 2,293,386 Glass Bottom Boat Sightseeing 16,483 37,675 54,157 Total 2,694,915 3,027,210 5,722,125


By Recreation Activity – Miami-Dade County Number of Person-Days

Activity Artificial Reefs Natural Reefs All Reefs Snorkeling 281,347 599,359 880,706 Scuba Diving 168,664 270,813 439,477 Fishing 959,302 2,363,723 3,323,024 Glass Bottom Boat Sightseeing 3,124 14,060 17,184 Total 1,412,438 3,247,954 4,660,392


By Recreation Activity – Monroe County Number of Person-Days

Activity Artificial Reefs Natural Reefs All Reefs Snorkeling 121,778 641,218 762,996 Scuba Diving 75,632 282,336 357,967 Fishing 277,349 603,549 880,899 Glass Bottom Boat Sightseeing 3,636 71,363 74,999 Total 478,395 1,598,467 2,076,862



Table 2.2.1-18 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Visitors Spent Participating in Saltwater Boating Activities and

Reef Use - June 2000 to May 2001 Palm Beach County

Number of Person-Days on:

Activity Boat Mode

Number of Person

Days Artificial

Reefs Natural Reefs

No Reefs

Charter/Party 34,171 6,276 27,895 0 Rental 9,528 5,558 3,970 0 Snorkeling Private 83,785 25,105 58,679 0 Charter/Party 795,460 179,124 607,859 8,477 Rental 5,257 1,643 3,614 0 Scuba Diving Private 127,484 57,155 70,329 0 Charter 39,428 5,399 18,221 15,808 Party 73,270 10,032 33,861 29,377 Rental 16,428 0 986 15,443

Fishing – Offshore / Trolling

Private 115,655 32,937 64,004 18,714 Charter/Party 329 0 0 329 Rental 329 0 0 329

Fishing – Flats or Back Country

Private 657 0 657 0 Charter 18,071 2,474 8,351 7,245 Party 32,200 4,409 14,881 12,910 Rental 0 0 0 0

Fishing Bottom

Private 39,428 0 17,367 22,061 Glass Bottom Boat 0 0 0 0 Back Country Excursion

986 0 0 986

Rental 5,914 0 0 5,914

Viewing Nature and Wildlife

Private 23 0 0 23 Rental 2,629 0 0 2,629 Personal Watercraft (jet

skis, wave runners, etc.) Private 42,714 0 0 42,714 Charter/Party 657 0 0 657 Rental 1,314 0 0 1,314 Sailing Private 34,171 0 0 34,171 Charter/Party 4,929 0 0 4,929 Rental 0 0 0 0 Other Boating Activities Private 33,185 0 0 33,185

Total Person-Days 1,540,978 330,112 930,675 280,190




Reef Use - June 2000 to May 2001 Broward County


Activity Boat Mode

Number of Person

Days Artificial Reefs

Natural Reefs

No Reefs

Charter/Party 233,553 52,880 176,267 4,407 Rental 0 0 0 0 Snorkeling Private 125,239 34,789 90,450 0 Charter/Party 2,613,090 1,370,373 1,233,489 9,228 Rental 176,011 88,006 88,006 0 Scuba Diving Private 240,323 128,745 111,579 0 Charter 338,483 48,895 52,970 236,619 Party 2,034,284 293,859 318,347 1,422,078 Rental 0 0 0 0


Private 1,133,919 471,151 637,970 24,797 Charter/Party 0 0 0 0 Rental 0 0 0 0


Private 88,006 29,335 44,298 0 Charter 6,770 978 1,059 4,732 Party 169,242 24,447 68,826 118,309 Rental 0 0 0 0

Fishing Bottom

Private 301,250 134,976 166,274 0 Glass Bottom Boat 54,157 16,483 37,675 0 Back Country Excursion

20,309 0 0 20,309

Rental 10,154 0 0 10,154


Private 74,466 0 0 74,466 Rental 13,539 0 0 13,539 Personal Watercraft (jet

skis, wave runners, etc.) Private 176,011 0 0 176,011 Charter/Party 0 0 0 0 Rental 0 0 0 0 Sailing Private 44,003 0 0 44,003 Charter/Party 60,927 0 0 60,927 Rental 3,385 0 0 3,385 Other Boating Activities Private 10,154 0 0 10,154

Total Person-Days 7,927,276 2,694,915 3,027,210 2,233,120




Reef Use - June 2000 to May 2001 Miami-Dade County


Activity Boat Mode

Number of Person


Natural Reefs

No Reefs

Charter/Party 144,205 51,231 79,692 13,282 Rental 0 0 0 0 Snorkeling Private 751,307 230,116 519,667 1,524 Charter/Party 142,763 25,318 102,677 14,769 Rental 0 0 0 0 Scuba Diving Private 311,483 143,347 168,136 0 Charter 288,410 93,657 114,974 79,778 Party 501,833 162,964 200,056 138,814 Rental 347,534 139,013 208,520 0


Private 1,455,027 318,640 817,748 318,640 Charter/Party 1,442 0 0 1,442 Rental 0 0 0 0


Private 637,386 59,393 538,880 39,112 Charter 18,747 6,088 7,473 5,186 Party 233,612 75,862 93,129 64,620 Rental 0 0 0 0

Fishing Bottom

Private 501,833 103,684 382,941 15,207 Glass Bottom Boat 18,747 3,124 14,060 1,562 Back Country Excursion

0 0 0 0

Rental 2,884 0 0 2,884



skis, wave runners, etc.) Private 73,544 0 0 73,544 Charter/Party 23,073 0 0 23,073 Rental 7,210 0 0 7,210 Sailing Private 235,054 0 0 235,054 Charter/Party 46,146 0 0 46,146 Rental 2,884 0 0 2,884 Other Boating Activities Private 194,677 0 0 194,677





Reef Use - June 2000 to May 2001 Monroe County (Florida Keys)


Activity Boat Mode

Number of Person


Natural Reefs

No Reefs

Charter/Party 269,479 13,413 250,701 5,365 Rental 65,315 8,476 56,590 249 Snorkeling Private 465,424 99,889 333,928 31,607 Charter/Party 119,816 17,678 99,738 2,401 Rental 18,600 1,898 16,702 0 Scuba Diving Private 222,331 56,056 165,896 379 Charter 93,863 4,779 41,190 47,894 Party 110,300 5,616 48,403 56,281 Rental 35,902 10,097 21,317 4,488


Private 618,547 119,763 215,028 283,756 Charter/Party 18,167 0 0 18,167 Rental 9,084 0 0 9,084


Private 305,380 62,694 95,052 147,634 Charter 21,195 1,079 9,301 10,815 Party 24,223 1,233 10,630 12,360 Rental 15,572 4,152 7,786 3,633

Fishing Bottom

Private 467,587 67,935 154,842 244,810 Glass Bottom Boat 80,454 3,636 71,363 5,455 Back Country Excursion

15,572 0 0 15,572

Rental 50,608 0 0 50,608




Total Person-Days 3,710,416 478,395 1,598,467 1,633,554



2.2.2 Economic Contribution – Visitors The Visitor Boater Survey asked respondents how much money they and members of their party spent on their last day that they participated in fishing, scuba diving and snorkeling in the county. The respondent was also asked how many people spent or benefited from those expenditures. The respondent was asked only to provide the amount of money spent in the county of interview. From this information, a picture of the average itemized expenditures per person per fishing or diving day and by boating mode was estimated.

The average itemized per person expenditures by those who participated in the activity-boat mode are provided for each county in Tables 2.2.2-1 through 2.2.2-4. For example, Palm Beach County visitors who went scuba diving or snorkeling on charter or party boats spent, on average, $138 per person per day. This expenditure was comprised of $56 per day for the dive charter or party boat, $21 per day for lodging and $21 per day for food and beverages in restaurants and bars, among other items. As can be seen from Palm Beach County’s daily expenditure table, visitors who fish via charter boats spent significantly more per person per day than visitors who dive or who fish via other boating modes. This also is the case for Miami-Dade and Monroe counties primarily due to the greater expense associated with renting a charter boat.

The lodging expenditure item includes lodging costs for hotels, motels and campgrounds or if the respondent paid by the day or by the week for the other accommodations. The $21 per person per day for lodging may seem lower than the actual per person rate of a hotel or motel. Bear in mind that only a portion of visitors stay at a hotel or motel. Visitor accommodations also include campgrounds, family or friends, second homes and time-shares. Also, as discussed previously, many visitors spend only one day in the county and therefore do not incur the cost of a room. The cost of the second home or time share is not included in the lodging cost because this is a monthly or up front cost that can, at best, only be partially due to the existence of the reefs.

The number of person-days multiplied the expenditures per person per day by boating mode and reef type to obtain an estimate of the total expenditures associated with reef related activities. The itemized total expenditures associated with reef use in 2000-2001 are provided in Tables 2.2.2-5 through 2.2.2-8 for each county. The expenditures associated with glass bottom boating days only included the fee per person per ride ($20). The other expenditures associated with the entire day spent in the county were not included for glass bottom boat riders because these visitors are likely in the county for other reasons either not reef-related or included in the other reef-related recreational activities.

The reef-related visitor expenditures were then used to estimate the economic contribution of artificial and natural reefs to each of the counties. As discussed in the Introduction of the Report, expenditures by visitors generate income and jobs within the industries that supply reef-related goods and services, such as charter/party boat operations, restaurants and hotels. These industries are called direct industries. In addition, these expenditures create multiplier effects wherein additional income and employment is created as the income earned by the reef-related industries is re-spent within the county. These additional effects of reef-related expenditures are called indirect and induced. Indirect effects are generated as the reef-related industries purchase



goods and services from other industries in the county. Induced effects are created when the employees of the direct and indirect industries spend their money in the county.

Table 2.2.2-1 (Visitors) Amount of Money Spent in County Per Person During Most Recent Day

Participating in Each Reef-Related Activity and Boating Mode Palm Beach County

From Visitor Boater Survey Responses – 2000 Dollars Amount Spent Per Person-Daya

Fishing On: Scuba Diving or Snorkeling On:

Item

Own, Friend's or

Rental Boatb Charter

Boat Party Boat

Own, Friend's or Rental Boat

Charter or Party Boat

Charter / Party Boat Fee $96.00 $24.41 $56.26 Boat Rental $0.94 Boat Fuel $58.84 $38.40 Air Refills $1.86 $1.67 Tackle $28.21 Bait $6.22 Ice $1.96 $1.56 $0.06 Ramp Fees $4.80 $15.12 $0.01 Marina Fees $30.63 $21.23 $0.17 Lodging $7.36 $28.68 $17.84 $1.72 $20.60 Camping Fees $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.45 $0.67 Food and Beverages - Stores $11.71 $16.03 $13.77 $17.66 $8.34

Food and Beverages - Restaurants/Bars

$23.12 $33.54 $29.74 $19.39 $21.54

Auto Gas $3.85 $30.70 $2.89 $3.36 $8.24 Auto Rental $8.99 $29.29 $10.69 $5.80 $9.12 Equipment Rental $1.73 $0.00 $4.97 $0.50 $2.09 Shopping $7.99 $28.88 $11.20 $9.39 $9.68 Total $195.42 $263.13 $115.50 $137.37 $138.48 Number of Respondents 47 19 78 42 314 Number of Respondents and Party Membersc 152 51 176 137 718 Expenditures per person per day were estimated from the responses to the Visitor Boater Survey. For each Activity_Mode, the

expenditures for each item were summed over all the respondents who participated in the Activity_Mode. The total number of respondents and party members who spent or benefited from the expenditures divided this sum.

b Boat rental is included under Equipment Rental. c The number of persons used to calculate the average expenditure per person for a specific item will be up to two percent lower

than the number of respondents and party members due to the incidents of "don't knows" for a specific item. "Don't know" answers and the associated number of persons in the party were excluded from the calculation of expenditures per person for a specific expenditure item.




Participating in Each Reef-Related Activity and Boating Mode Broward County



Item

Own, Friend's or


Boat Party Boat




Food and Beverages - Restaurants/Bars $17.11 $45.89 $50.65 $14.93 $36.54








Participating in Each Reef-Related Activity and Boating Mode Miami-Dade County



Item

Own, Friend's or


Boat Party Boat






expenditures for each item were summed over all the respondents who participated in the Activity_Mode. This sum was divided by the total number of respondents and party members who spent or benefited from the expenditures.






Participating in Each Reef-Related Activity and Boating Mode Monroe County



Item

Own, Friend's or


Boat Party Boat





Auto Gas $8.21 $6.63 $3.56 $7.21 $4.55 Auto Rental $2.83 $14.80 $4.49 $4.47 $8.52 Equipment Rental $2.08 $1.18 $0.63 $0.44 $2.69 Shopping $16.68 $29.68 $30.73 $11.03 $19.11 Total $156.57 $284.99 $167.57 $142.23 $172.89 Number of Respondents 368 126 171 342 544 Number of Respondents and Party Membersc 1,468 394 484 1,463 1,888 Expenditures per person per day were estimated from the responses to the Visitor Boater Survey. For each Activity_Mode, the


b Boat rental is included under Equipment Rental. c The number of persons used to calculate the average expenditure per person for a specific item will be up to two percent

lower than the number of respondents and party members due to the incidents of "don't knows" for a specific item. "Don't know" answers and the associated number of persons in the party were excluded from the calculation of expenditures per person for a specific expenditure item.



Table 2.2.2-5 (Visitors) Total Visitor Expenditures In Palm Beach County Associated with Reef Use

All Reef-Related Activities and Boating Modes June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars

Item Artificial Reef Natural Reef Total Total Number of Person Days 330,112 930,675 1,260,787 Charter / Party Boat Fee $11,539,154 $39,509,116 $51,048,270 Boat Rental 84,080 128,377 212,457 Boat Fuel 5,373,044 10,129,360 15,502,404 Air Refills 476,896 1,318,351 1,795,247 Tackle 929,222 2,341,949 3,271,170 Bait 204,837 516,259 721,096 Ice 215,386 414,936 630,322 Ramp Fees 1,512,441 2,470,091 3,982,532 Marina Fees 2,939,896 5,550,829 8,490,725 Lodging 4,699,409 15,575,573 20,274,983 Camping Fees 165,415 490,450 655,865 Food and Beverages - Stores 3,836,933 9,783,741 13,620,674 Food and Beverages - Restaurants/Bars 7,183,784 20,604,786 27,788,570 Auto Gas 2,238,482 6,974,355 9,212,837 Auto Rental 2,891,652 8,638,760 11,530,413 Equipment Rental 561,319 1,784,856 2,346,175 Shopping 3,287,962 9,415,881 12,703,843 Glass Bottom Boat Ride 0 0 0 Total $48,139,911 $135,647,670 $183,787,582



Table 2.2.2-6 (Visitors) Total Visitor Expenditures In Broward County Associated with Reef Use


Item Artificial Reef Natural Reef Total Total Number of Person Days 2,694,915 3,027,210 5,722,125 Charter / Party Boat Fee $109,166,167 $110,508,817 $219,674,984 Boat Rental 216,844 250,030 466,873 Boat Fuel 16,326,072 20,969,451 37,295,524 Air Refills 2,963,161 2,975,942 5,939,103 Tackle 817,690 1,091,875 1,909,565 Bait 3,051,152 4,074,253 7,125,405 Ice 1,593,185 2,017,408 3,610,593 Ramp Fees 1,060,145 1,235,500 2,295,644 Marina Fees 1,352,237 1,672,381 3,024,618 Lodging 66,625,405 70,694,385 137,319,791 Camping Fees 1,219,072 1,242,955 2,462,027 Food and Beverages - Stores 31,911,169 36,176,792 68,087,961 Food and Beverages - Restaurants/Bars 85,044,260 92,450,853 177,495,113 Auto Gas 17,753,895 20,087,351 37,841,245 Auto Rental 24,887,396 26,310,827 51,198,222 Equipment Rental 3,793,516 3,895,783 7,689,299 Shopping 127,637,167 132,276,824 259,913,991 Glass Bottom Boat Ride 329,653 753,493 1,083,146 Total $495,748,186 $528,684,919 $1,024,433,105



Table 2.2.2-7 (Visitors) Total Visitor Expenditures In Miami-Dade County Associated with Reef Use


Item Artificial Reef Natural Reef Total Total Number of Person Days 1,412,438 3,247,954 4,660,392 Charter / Party Boat Fee $17,118,148 $23,710,254 $40,828,402 Boat Rental 2,540,565 4,678,931 7,219,496 Boat Fuel 30,156,338 86,350,800 116,507,138 Air Refills 2,538,890 4,760,334 7,299,223 Tackle 2,932,339 9,202,805 12,135,144 Bait 1,570,737 4,929,575 6,500,312 Ice 2,035,146 5,381,221 7,416,367 Ramp Fees 1,782,445 4,834,576 6,617,021 Marina Fees 3,496,104 7,559,320 11,055,423 Lodging 17,096,751 23,592,903 40,689,654 Camping Fees 651,817 1,602,569 2,254,386 Food and Beverages - Stores 24,957,770 60,274,523 85,232,293 Food and Beverages - Restaurants/Bars 27,777,276 55,785,655 83,562,932 Auto Gas 9,568,144 21,174,183 30,742,328 Auto Rental 13,659,366 28,193,581 41,852,947 Equipment Rental 1,958,101 4,261,687 6,219,788 Shopping 22,089,926 43,581,942 65,671,868 Glass Bottom Boat Ride 62,489 281,199 343,688 Total $181,992,354 $390,156,057 $572,148,411



Table 2.2.2-8 (Visitors) Total Visitor Expenditures In Monroe County Associated with Reef Use


Item Artificial Reef Natural Reef Total Total Number of Person Days 478,395 1,598,467 2,076,862 Charter / Party Boat Fee $2,215,748 $22,752,503 $24,968,251 Boat Rental 1,335,356 4,601,477 5,936,833 Boat Fuel 9,391,142 20,866,226 30,257,368 Air Refills 294,492 1,417,735 1,712,226 Tackle 1,812,737 3,383,970 5,196,707 Bait 1,510,516 2,819,792 4,330,308 Ice 1,483,748 3,539,523 5,023,271 Ramp Fees 498,254 1,261,038 1,759,293 Marina Fees 2,321,536 5,850,565 8,172,101 Lodging 13,562,993 51,114,784 64,677,777 Camping Fees 4,989,991 14,348,964 19,338,955 Food and Beverages - Stores 9,326,234 27,085,778 36,412,012 Food and Beverages - Restaurants/Bars 11,142,883 39,515,821 50,658,705 Auto Gas 3,575,394 10,323,454 13,898,848 Auto Rental 1,875,831 7,959,339 9,835,170 Equipment Rental 718,651 2,319,993 3,038,643 Shopping 7,228,354 24,573,805 31,802,159 Glass Bottom Boat Ride 72,727 1,427,269 1,499,996 Total $73,356,586 $245,162,036 $318,518,623



The direct, indirect and induced increase in sales, total income, employment and indirect business taxes generated by the reef-related expenditures were estimated for Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties using the IMPLAN Regional Input-Output Model. This model uses detailed data on the economies of these counties to estimate economic multipliers and to model the impact of reef-related expenditures on the economy.

For Monroe County, a different approach was used because of concern that the IMPLAN model does not adequately capture the unique economy of this county. Relative to other counties in the nation, this economy is very dependent on imports and heavily dependent on one industry, tourism. Therefore, the approach used in Leeworthy (1996) was used. This approach utilized several ratios on economic measures for Monroe County derived from data published by the U.S. Census (1997 Economic Census) and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. These ratios included (1) wage-to-sales ratio, (2) wages-to-employment ratio, (3) total income-to-wage and salaries ratio, and (4) proprietor's income-to-proprietor's employment ratio. These ratios were multiplied by the total visitor expenditures associated with reef-related activities to estimate total direct sales, direct income and direct employment due to these activities. The analysis then utilized sales (1.6), income (1.6) and employment (1.6) multipliers taken from a recent Monroe County economic study (Leeworthy, 1996) to estimate total (direct, indirect and induced) contributions to sales, income and employment from visitor expenditures associated with reef related activities. This method provides estimates of total direct, indirect and induced economic contributions for Monroe County and cannot provide a breakdown of direct versus indirect versus induced effects.

The economic contribution of the reefs to each of the counties is provided in Tables 2.2.2-9 through 2.2.2-12. The sales contribution is defined as the value of the additional output produced in the county due to the reef-related expenditures. The total income contribution is defined as the sum of employee compensation, proprietor’s income, interest, rents, and profits generated as a result of the reef-related expenditures. Income is the money that stays in the county’s economy. The employment contribution is the number of full- time and part-time jobs created due to the reef-related expenditures. The indirect business tax contribution is the sum of the additional excise taxes, property taxes, fees, licenses, and sales taxes collected due to the reef-related expenditures.

Each table represents the economic contribution to the county as visitors to that county spend money in the county to use the reefs. The economic contributions cannot be summed over the four counties to get the total contribution of the reefs to southeast Florida. Instead, the expenditures of visitor reef users to southeast Florida would have to be estimated wherein a visitor comes from outside the four county area. In this study, each county’s visitors were evaluated on a county-by-county basis, so that a visitor in Palm Beach County could be a resident of Broward County. If the expenditures of all four counties reported in this study were added together and then input into the IMPLAN model to estimate the economic contribution to southeast Florida, the reported economic contribution of the reefs would be overestimated. This is because southeast Florida resident expenditures would be included in the multiplier effects.



Table 2.2.2-9 (Visitors) Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Expenditures by Visitors to Palm Beach County

Economic Area is Palm Beach County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars

Reef Type/Economic Contribution Direct Indirect Induced Total Artificial Reefs Sales $48,139,911 $13,615,865 $19,410,419 $81,166,195 Total Income $25,033,935 $7,408,596 $12,211,129 $44,653,660 Employment 849 142 253 1,244 Indirect Business Taxes $4,087,804 $754,643 $1,210,601 $6,053,048 Natural Reefs Sales $135,647,661 $37,909,019 $54,627,400 $228,184,080 Total Income $72,055,317 $20,844,992 $34,328,471 $127,228,780 Employment 2,439 401 712 3,552 Indirect Business Taxes $11,220,086 $2,152,321 $3,417,124 $16,789,531 Natural and Artificial Reefs Sales $183,787,572 $51,524,884 $74,037,819 $309,350,275 Total Income $97,089,252 $28,253,588 $46,539,600 $171,882,440 Employment 3,288 543 965 4,796 Indirect Business Taxes $15,307,890 $2,906,964 $4,627,725 $22,842,579

Table 2.2.2-10 (Visitors) Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Expenditures by Visitors to Broward County

Economic Area is Broward County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars

Reef Type/Economic Contribution Direct Indirect Induced Total Artificial Reefs Sales $493.3 $136.67 $241.11 $871.08 Total Income $264.67 $75.01 $149.75 $489.43 Employment 11,155 1,548 3,306 16,009 Indirect Business Taxes $46.87 $7.87 $15.11 $69.85 Natural Reefs Sales $526.11 $145.52 $257.48 $929.11 Total Income $282.27 $79.75 $159.93 $521.95 Employment 11,814 1,645 3,530 16,989 Indirect Business Taxes $50.15 $8.37 $16.13 $74.69 Natural and Artificial Reefs Sales $1,019.41 $282.18 $498.59 $1,800.19 Total Income $546.97 $154.76 $309.67 $1,011.37 Employment 22,969 3,193 6,837 32,999 Indirect Business Taxes $97.02 $16.23 $31.24 $144.49



Table 2.2.2-11 (Visitors) Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Expenditures by Visitors to Miami-Dade County

Economic Area is Miami-Dade County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars

Reef Type/Economic Contribution Direct Indirect Induced Total Artificial Reefs Sales $181,992,354 $50,373,237 $91,522,054 $323,887,645 Total Income $98,068,036 $26,955,522 $56,811,301 $181,834,859 Employment 3,532 520 1,214 5,266 Indirect Business Taxes $18,462,677 $2,954,424 $5,467,652 $26,884,753 Natural Reefs Sales $390,156,057 $106,631,671 $200,284,701 $697,072,429 Total Income $211,942,283 $56,642,529 $124,502,414 $393,087,226 Employment 7,462 1,087 2,662 11,211 Indirect Business Taxes $41,647,111 $6,178,534 $11,923,603 $59,749,248 Natural and Artificial Reefs Sales $572,148,411 $157,004,908 $291,806,755 $1,020,960,074 Total Income $310,010,319 $83,598,051 $181,313,715 $574,922,085 Employment 10,994 1,607 3,876 16,477 Indirect Business Taxes $60,109,788 $9,132,958 $17,391,255 $86,634,001

Table 2.2.2-12 (Visitors) Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Expenditures by Visitors to Monroe County

Economic Area is Monroe County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars

Artificial Reefs Natural Reefs Total

Total Sales $82,159,376 $274,581,481 $356,740,857 Total Income $26,695,085 $94,168,665 $120,863,750 Total Employment 1,916 6,737 8,653

2.2.3 Use Value Use value was defined in the introduction to this report. In this study, four types of use values were estimated: (1) the value of maintaining the natural reefs in their existing condition; (2) the value of maintaining the artificial reefs in their existing condition; (3) the value of maintaining both artificial and natural reefs in their existing condition; and (4) the value of adding and maintaining additional artificial reefs. In general, use value is the maximum amount of money that reef users are willing to pay to maintain the reefs in their existing condition and to add more artificial reefs to the system. Use value is measured in terms of per party per trip for existing natural and artificial reefs, and per party per year for new artificial reefs. For presentation, values were normalized to values per person-day of reef use so they can be compared with the results of other studies. Use value is also presented in aggregate for all users of the reef system.



The visitor reef-user values associated with maintaining the reefs in their existing conditions for each county is provided in Table 2.2.3-1. Use value per person day means the value per person day of artificial, natural or all reef use, as specified in the table. Values for all reefs were taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 38 of Visitor Boater Survey: “Suppose that both of the above plans to maintain the natural and artificial reefs in southeast Florida were put together into a combined program...If your total costs for this trip would have been $___ higher, would you have been willing to pay this amount to maintain the artificial and natural reefs.” Values for artificial reefs were taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 36 pertaining only to a program to maintain the existing artificial reefs in their current condition. Values for natural reefs were taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 34 pertaining only to a program to maintain the natural reefs in their current condition.

A logit model was used on the entire visitor data pooled across all four counties and the two seasons (e.g., summer and winter). The logit model was used to test for differences by county, season, activity-boat mode, type of reef used (e.g., natural or artificial), and various user characteristics such as, household income, age of respondent, race/ethnicity, sex, boat ownership, years of boating experience in South Florida and whether the respondent was a member of a fishing or diving club.

Separate models were estimated for each of the four reef programs (e.g., natural reefs, existing artificial reefs, natural and artificial reefs combined, and new artificial reefs and maintenance). For all four reef programs, significant differences were found by county. On both a per-party per trip and per person-trip basis, Miami-Dade County had the lowest values for all four reef programs. In order from lowest to highest values were Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Broward and Monroe.

Significant differences were also found by activity-boat modes, but these differences were dependent on reef type and county. For natural reefs, there were no differences that could be identified for Miami-Dade County. For Palm Beach and Broward counties, scuba divers from charter/party boats had significantly higher values than users from all other activity-boat modes. For Monroe County, snorkelers from private/rental boats and scuba divers from charter/party boats had higher values than users of all other activity-boat modes.

For existing artificial reefs, there were no differences found by activity-boat modes for Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Broward counties. For Monroe County, differences were found for snorkelers from private/rental boats and for those who bottom fished from private/rental boats. These latter user groups were, holding all other factors constant, willing to pay more than those who participated in other activity-boat modes.

For the combined natural and artificial reef program, there were no differences found among activity-boat modes in Miami-Dade County. For Palm Beach and Broward counties, scuba divers from charter/party boats were willing to pay more than those who participated in other activity-boat modes. For Monroe County, snorkelers from private/rental boats, scuba divers



from charter/party boats, and those who participated in bottom fishing from private/rental boats had higher willingness to pay than those who participated in other activity-boat modes.

For the new artificial reefs, there were no differences found among the different activity-boat modes in Miami-Dade County. For Palm Beach, Broward and Monroe counties, scuba divers from charter/party boats had a higher willingness to pay than those who participated in all other activity-boat modes.

Season was a significant factor in all estimated models. Summer season visitors had significantly lower willingness to pay than winter season visitors. This influenced our decision on how to calculate total annual value. We calculated separate total values for the summer and winter seasons and then added them together to get annual values.

Household income was a significant factor in all of the estimated logit models. The higher the household income levels, the higher the willingness to pay. Race/ethnicity was mixed. There were no significant differences for Hispanic visitors. Whites (95 percent of the visitors) had higher willingness to pay for natural reefs, existing artificial reefs and the combination of natural and artificial reefs, but being white was not significant for new artificial reefs.

Sex was only significant for existing artificial reefs. Males (74 percent of the sample reef users) had higher willingness to pay than female reef users. Boat ownership was significant for existing artificial reefs and for the combined natural and artificial reef programs. Boat owners had higher willingness to pay than non-boat owners, holding all other factors constant, for these two programs.

For all other factors tested, there were no significant differences in willingness-to-pay for any of the four programs. These factors included age, years of experience in South Florida boating and membership in a fishing or diving club.

The logit model was used to estimate the values per party per trip for each of the sampled users for each reef type program. For new artificial reefs, this required an additional calculation because the question asked for a yearly amount instead of an amount per trip. For new artificial reefs, we divided the per party per year estimate by the number of trips that the person made to South Florida on which they used artificial reefs over the past 12 months. We then estimated separate sample averages for each county, Season and Activity-boat mode for which there were significant differences. These values per party per trip were then divided by the average party size (number of people who benefited from or incurred the trip expenses) by county and activity-boat mode to get estimates of willingness to pay per person-trip.

To estimate annual user values, the values per person-trip were multiplied by the estimates of the number of person-trips by county, Season and Activity-boat mode. Although we present the more aggregated results here, the details are provided in the Technical Appendix to this report.



Dividing the total annual user value by the relevant number of total annual person-days derived user value per person-day. Again, the value per person-day is a standardized measure that can be compared with results from other studies.

The results are consistent with the idea that natural reefs are more valuable than artificial reefs. Across all four counties, natural reefs were valued by visitors at $16.85 per person-day versus $14.26 per person-day for artificial reefs. Numbers of person-days of reef use were also higher for natural versus artificial reefs. This translates into an estimated $148 million in annual use value for the natural reefs versus $70 million for the artificial reefs.

Visitor reef users in Palm Beach County are willing to pay $21 million per year to maintain both the artificial reefs and the natural reefs in their current condition by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to reefs from anchoring, and preventing overuse of the reefs. When the projects to protect the artificial and natural reefs are considered separately, visitor reef users are willing to pay $6 million to protect the artificial reefs and $26 million to protect the natural reefs.

Visitor reef users in Broward County are willing to pay $113 million per year to maintain both the artificial reefs and the natural reefs in their current condition by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to reefs from anchoring, and preventing overuse of the reefs. When the projects to protect the artificial and natural reefs are considered separately, visitor reef users are willing to pay $52 million to protect the artificial reefs and $64 million to protect the natural reefs.

Visitor reef users in Miami-Dade County are willing to pay $33 million per year to maintain both the artificial reefs and the natural reefs in their current condition by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to reefs from anchoring, and preventing overuse of the reefs. When the projects to protect the artificial and natural reefs are considered separately, visitor reef users are willing to pay $6 million to protect the artificial reefs and $23 million to protect the natural reefs.

Visitor reef users in Monroe County are willing to pay $39 million per year to maintain both the artificial reefs and the natural reefs in their current condition by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to reefs from anchoring, and preventing overuse of the reefs. When the projects to protect the artificial and natural reefs are considered separately, visitor reef users are willing to pay $6 million to protect the artificial reefs and $36 million to protect the natural reefs.

The sum of the values for the individual reef programs can be different from the value for the combined programs. This is because some respondents are not willing to pay the sum of the individual program values to finance the combined programs. This is probably due to income constraints as higher bid values are provided to the respondents. So bear in mind that willingness to pay for the combined programs is a completely different scenario from willingness to pay for the individual programs.

The capitalized value of the reef user values is the present value of the annual values calculated at three percent discount rate. It represents the “stock” value analogous to land market values. The capitalized visitor reef user value for all southeast Florida reefs is $6.9 billion. Bear in mind



that this value only includes the value that visitor reef users place on the reefs and does not include the values that resident reef users and non-reef-users place on the reefs or the economic contribution of the reefs. The estimation of the value of reefs to non-reef users was not part of this study.

Reef users’ willingness to pay to invest in and maintain “new” artificial reefs is provided in Table 2.2.3-2. The use value per person-day is the value per day or a portion of a day of artificial reef use. In Palm Beach County, reef users are willing to pay $4 million annually for this program in Palm Beach County. Broward County reef users are willing to pay $15 million per year while Miami-Dade County reef users are willing to pay $3.6 million per year. Monroe County reef users are willing to pay $1.7 million annually per year to fund this program in Monroe County.



Table 2.2.3-1 (Visitors) Annual Use Value From June 2000 to May 2001 and Capitalized Value associated With Reef Use

Visitor Reef-Users by County

Item Palm Beach


Miami-Dade County

Monroe County Total

All Reefs - Artificial and Natural

Number of Person-Days of Reef Use 1,260,787 5,722,125 4,660,392 2,076,862 13,720,166

Use Value Per Person-Day of Reef Use $16.68 $19.92 $7.01 $17.19 $15.04

Annual Use Value in Million Dollars $21.03 $113.98 $32.65 $38.67 $206.34

Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate in Billion Dollars $0.7 $3.8 $1.1 $1.3 $6.9

Artificial Reefs

Number of Person-Days of Artificial Reef Use 330,112 2,694,915 1,412,438 478,395 4,915,860

Use Value Per Person-Day $17.89 $19.39 $4.31 $12.23 $14.26



Natural Reefs

Number of Person-Days of Natural Reef Use 930,675 3,027,210 3,247,954 1,598,467 8,804,306

Use Value Per Person-Day $27.85 $21.04 $7.09 $22.35 $16.85





Table 2.2.3-2 (Visitors) Estimated Use Value of Investing in and Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs

Visitor Reef-Users by County

Item Palm Beach


Miami-Dade County

Monroe County Total

Number of Person-Days of Artificial Reef Use 330,112 2,694,915 1,412,438 478,395 4,915,860


Annual Use Values for "New" Artificial Reefs in Million Dollars $4.00 $14.94 $3.63 $1.72 $24.26

Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate in Million Dollars $132.15 $498.15 $120.89 $57.48 $808.67

Note: Use value per person-day is use value per day or portion of a day of artificial reef use.



2.2.4 Demographic Information The Visitor Boater Survey asked the respondent questions regarding his/her socioeconomic characteristics so that a picture of the typical reef user could be developed. The results for each county are summarized in Table 2.2.4-1.

Table 2.2.4-1 (Visitors) Demographic Characteristics of Visitor Reef-Users in Southeast Florida, 2000

Characteristic Palm Beach


Miami-Dade County

Monroe County

Median Age of Respondent – Years 41 39 41 44 Sex of Respondent

Male 79% 77% 75% 70% Female 21% 23% 25% 30%

Race of Respondent White 94% 89% 83% 95% Black 2% 7% 7% 2% Other 4% 4% 10% 3%

Percent Hispanic / Latino 5% 13% 29% 8% Median Household Income $87,500 $87,500 $55 $87,500 Average Years Boating in Southeast Florida 9.2 6.7 6.7 7.4

Average Length of Own Boat Used in Saltwater Boating in Feet 25 27 26 22

Percent of Respondents Who Belong to Fishing and/or Diving Clubs 24% 12% 6% 11%

2.3 Total – Residents and Visitors This section summarizes the user activities, economic contribution and use values associated with the artificial and natural reefs of southeast Florida for both residents and visitors. Demographic information of both resident and visitor reef users is also provided.

2.3.1 User Activity The number of person-days spent using the reefs in southeast Florida by county, reef type and population (residents and visitors) are summarized in Table 2.3.1-1. Visitors and residents spent 28 million person-days using artificial and natural reefs in southeast Florida during the 12-month period from June 2000 to May 2001. Residents spent 14.6 million person-days and visitors spent 13.7 million person-days. Reef users spent 10 million person-days using artificial reefs



and 18 million person-days using natural reefs. A summary of reef use by type of activity is provided in Table 2.3.1-2.

Table 2.3.1-1 Number of Person-Days Spent on Artificial and Natural Reefs in Southeast Florida

Residents and Visitors By County (in millions) Palm Beach County Broward County

Population Artificial

Reefs Natural Reefs All Reefs

Artificial Reefs

Natural Reefs All Reefs

Residents 1.08 1.90 2.98 1.28 2.44 3.72 Visitors 0.33 0.93 1.26 2.70 3.02 5.72 Total 1.41 2.83 4.24 3.98 5.46 9.44

Miami-Dade County Monroe County



Artificial Reefs

Natural Reefs All Reefs

Residents 1.54 2.97 4.51 1.10 2.28 3.38 Visitors 1.41 3.25 4.66 0.48 1.60 2.08 Total 2.95 6.22 9.17 1.58 3.88 5.46

Southeast Florida



Residents 5.00 9.58 14.58 Visitors 4.92 8.80 13.72 Total 9.92 18.38 28.30



Table 2.3.1-2 Number of Person-Days Spent Using Reefs in Southeast Florida By Recreational Activity

Residents and Visitors By County (in millions) Palm Beach County Broward County

Population Residents Visitors Total Residents Visitors Total

Snorkeling 0.62 0.13 0.74 0.73 0.35 1.09 Scuba Diving 0.81 0.92 1.73 0.83 3.02 3.85 Fishing 1.55 0.21 1.76 2.15 2.29 4.45 Glass Bottom Boats - 0 0 - 0.05 0.05 Total 2.98 1.26 4.23 3.71 5.71 9.44

Miami-Dade County Monroe County Population Residents Visitors Total Residents Visitors Total

Snorkeling 1.23 0.88 2.11 1.10 0.76 1.86 Scuba Diving 0.70 0.44 1.14 0.53 0.36 0.89 Fishing 2.58 3.32 5.90 1.74 0.88 2.62 Glass Bottom Boats - 0.02 0.02 - 0.08 0.08 Total 4.51 4.66 9.17 3.37 2.08 5.45

Southeast Florida Population Residents Visitors Total

Snorkeling 3.68 2.13 5.81 Scuba Diving 2.87 4.73 7.60 Fishing 8.03 6.71 14.74 Glass Bottom Boats - 0.15 0.15 Total 14.58 13.72 28.30 Note: Residents were not asked about their participation in glass bottom

boat sightseeing.

Overall, fishing activity on the reefs appears to dominate when snorkeling and scuba diving are compared separately. When snorkeling and scuba diving are consider together as diving activities, diving and fishing contribute about equally to total reef use in southeast Florida.

2.3.2 Economic Contribution The total economic contribution of the reefs to each county includes the contribution of reef expenditures to sales, income and employment. Expenditures by visitors generate income and jobs within the industries that supply reef-related goods and services, such as charter / party boat operations, restaurants and hotels. These industries are called direct industries. In addition, these visitor expenditures create multiplier effects wherein additional income and employment is created as the income earned by the reef-related industries is re-spent within the county. These additional effects of reef-related expenditures are called indirect and induced. Indirect effects are generated as the reef-related industries purchase goods and services from other industries in the



county. Induced effects are created when the employees of the direct and indirect industries spend their money in the county.



The economic contributions of the reefs to each of the counties are provided in Tables 2.3.2-1 through 2.3.2-9. The sales contribution is defined as the value of the additiona l output produced in the county due to the reef-related expenditures. The total income contribution is defined as the sum of employee compensation, proprietor’s income, interest, rents, and profits generated as a result of the reef-related expenditures. The employment contribution is the number of full-time and part-time jobs created due to the reef-related expenditures.

The economic contributions cannot be summed over the four counties to get the total contribution of the reefs to southeast Florida. Instead, the expenditures of visitor reef users to southeast Florida would have to be estimated wherein a visitor comes from outside the four county area. In this study, each county’s visitors were evaluated on a county-by-county basis, so that a visitor in Palm Beach County could be a resident of Broward County. If the expenditures of all four counties reported in this study were added together and then input into the economic input-output models to estimate the economic contribution to southeast Florida, the reported economic contribution of the reefs would be overestimated. This is because southeast Florida resident expenditures imbedded in the expenditures by visitors would be included in the multiplier effects.

Reef-related expenditures generated about $505 million in sales in Palm Beach County, $2.1 billion in sales in Broward County, $1.3 billion in sales in Miami-Dade County and $504 million in sales in Monroe County during the 12-month period from June 2000 to May 2001 as summarized in Table 2.3.2-3. These sales resulted in $194 million in income to Palm Beach County residents, $1.05 billion in income to Broward County residents, $614 million in income to Miami-Dade County residents and $140 million in income to Monroe County residents during the same time period as summarized in Table 2.3.2-6. Reef-related expenditures provided 6,300 jobs in Palm Beach County, 35,500 jobs in Broward County, 18,600 jobs in Miami-Dade County and 10,000 jobs in Monroe County as summarized in Table 2.3.2-9. Artificial reef-related



expenditures comprised about a third of the economic contribution and natural reef-related expenditures comprised about two-thirds of the economic contribution among the four counties.

Reef-related expenditures within each county are responsib le for almost ten percent of personal income by place of work, and 18.5 percent of employment, depending on the county. The percent of reef-related income that is total personal income for each county is provided in Table 2.3.2-10. The percent of ref-related employment that is total county employment is also presented in this table. The income and employment data used to calculate the percentages are provided in Table 2.3.2-11. Personal income is income from all sources, including employee compensation, proprietor’s income, other property income and government transfer payments.

Table 2.3.2-1 Economic Contribution of Artificial Reef-Related Expenditures to Each County

Contribution to Sales June 2000 to May 2001 – In Millions of 2000 dollars

County Round of Spending Palm Beach Broward Miami-Dade Monroe Directa

Resident $69.30 $90.90 $95.20 $49.35 Visitor $48.14 $493.30 $181.99 $51.35 Total $117.44 $584.20 $277.19 $100.70

Indirectb $13.62 $136.67 $50.37 $30.81 Induced $19.41 $241.11 $91.52 Total $150.47 $961.98 $419.09 $131.51 a The direct contribution is the actual expenditures made in the county. b For Monroe County, both the indirect and induced contribution are included under indirect.

Table 2.3.2-2 Economic Contribution of Natural Reef-Related Expenditures to Each County

Contribution to Sales June 2000 to May 2001 – In Millions of 2000 dollars


Resident $126.20 $178.90 $180.40 $98.15 Visitor $135.65 $526.11 $390.16 $171.61 Total $261.85 $705.01 $570.56 $269.76

Indirectb $37.91 $145.51 $106.63 $102.97 Induced $54.63 $257.48 $200.28 Total $354.39 $1,108.01 $877.47 $372.73 a The direct contribution is the actual expenditures made in the county. b For Monroe County, both the indirect and induced contribution are included under indirect.



Table 2.3.2-3 Economic Contribution of All Reef-Related Expenditures to Each County

Contribution to Sales June 2000 to May 2001 – In millions of 2000 dollars


Resident $195.40 $269.80 $275.60 $147.50 Visitor $183.79 $1,019.41 $572.15 $222.96 Total $379.19 $1,289.21 $847.75 $370.46

Indirectb $51.53 $282.18 $157.00 $133.78 Induced $74.04 $498.59 $291.80 $0 Total $504.75 $2,069.98 $1,296.55 $504.24 a The direct contribution is the actual expenditures made in the county. b For Monroe County, both the indirect and induced contribution are included under indirect.


Contribution to Total Income a June 2000 to May 2001 – In millions of 2000 dollars

County Round of Spending Palm Beach Broward Miami-Dade Monroe

Direct Resident $8.0 $12.50 $13.40 $6.42 Visitorb $25.0 $264.67 $98.00 $26.70 Total $33.0 $277.17 $111.40 $33.12

Indirect $7.4 $75.01 $27.00 Induced $12.2 $149.75 $56.80 Total $52.6 $501.93 $195.20 $33.12 a Total income includes employee compensation, proprietor's income, interest, rents and profits b For Monroe County, the direct, indirect and induced contributions are included under direct.





County Round of Spending Palm Beach Broward Miami-Dade Monroe Direct

Resident $14.4 $25.20 $25.50 $12.73 Visitorb $72.0 $282.26 $211.90 $94.20 Total $86.4 $307.46 $237.40 $106.93

Indirect $21.0 $79.75 $56.60 Induced $34.0 $159.93 $124.50 Total $141.4 $547.14 $418.50 $106.93 a Total income includes employee compensation, proprietor's income, interest, rents and profits b For Monroe County, the direct, indirect and induced contributions are included under direct.




Direct Resident $22.40 $37.70 $38.90 $19.15 Visitorb $97.00 $546.93 $309.90 $120.90 Total $119.40 $584.63 $348.80 $140.05

Indirect $28.40 $154.76 $83.60 $0 Induced $46.20 $309.68 $181.30 $0 Total $194.00 $1,049.07 $613.70 $140.05 a Total income includes employee compensation, proprietor's income, interest, rents and profits b For Monroe County, the direct, indirect and induced contributions are included under direct.




Contribution to Employmenta June 2000 to May 2001 – Number of Full-Time and Part-Time Jobs


Resident 536 812 724 449 Visitorb 849 11,155 3,532 1,916 Total 1,385 11,967 4,256 2,365

Indirect 142 1,548 520 Induced 253 3,306 1,214 Total 1,780 16,821 5,990 2,365 a Total income includes employee compensation, proprietor's income, interest, rents and profits b For Monroe County, the direct, indirect and induced contributions are included under direct.




Direct Resident 968 1,662 1,385 882 Visitorb 2,439 11,814 7,462 6,737 Total 3,407 13,476 8,847 7,619

Indirect 401 1,645 1,087 Induced 712 3,530 2,662 Total 4,520 18,651 12,596 7,619 a Total income includes employee compensation, proprietor's income, interest, rents and profits b For Monroe County, the direct, indirect and induced contributions are included under direct.






Resident 1,504 2,474 2,109 1,331 Visitorb 3,288 22,969 10,994 8,653 Total 4,792 25,443 13,103 9,984

Indirect 543 3,193 1,607 0 Induced 965 6,836 3,876 0 Total 6,300 35,472 18,586 9,984 a Total income includes employee compensation, proprietor's income, interest, rents and profits b For Monroe County, the direct, indirect and induced contributions are included under direct.

Table 2.3.2-10 Percent of County Income and Employment Tied to Reef Use

County

Personal Income Place of Residence

(Percent)

Personal Income Place of Work

(Percent) Employment

(Percent) Palm Beach 0.42 0.81 0.98 Broward 2.19 3.74 4.19 Miami-Dade 1.07 1.38 1.46 Monroe 4.98 10.0 19.0 Source: Study results and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis

Table 2.3.2-11 Personal Income and Employment by County, 1999

County

Personal Income Place of Residence

(Billions $)

Personal Income Place of Work

(Billions $) Employment (Number)a

Palm Beach 46.589 23.804 645,965 Broward 47.997 28.097 847,398 Miami-Dade 57.356 44.356 1,271,031 Monroe 2.813 1.452 54,200 a Number of full and part-time jobs Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis



2.3.3 Use Value In this study, three types of use values were estimated: (1) the value of maintaining the natural reefs in their existing condition; (2) the value of maintaining the artificial reefs in their existing condition and (3) the value of adding and maintaining additional artificial reefs. In general, use value is the maximum amount of money that reef users are willing to pay to maintain the reefs in their existing condition and to add more artificial reefs to the system. Use value is presented in terms of per person per day of reef use and in aggregate for all users of the reef system.

The reef-user values associated with maintaining the reefs in their existing conditions for each county is provided in Table 2.3.3-1. Use value per person day means the value per person day of artificial, natural or all reef use, as specified in the table. Values for all reefs were taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 38 of Visitor Boater Survey: “Suppose that both of the above plans to maintain the natural and artificial reefs in southeast Florida were put together into a combined program...If your total costs for this trip would have been $___ higher, would you have been willing to pay this amount to maintain the artificial and natural reefs.” Values for artificial reefs were taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 36 pertaining only to a program to maintain the existing artificial reefs in their current condition. Values for natural reefs were taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 34 pertaining only to a program to maintain the natural reefs in their current condition.

Visitor and resident reef users in Palm Beach County are willing to pay $31 million per year to maintain both the artificial reefs and the natural reefs in their current condition by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to reefs from anchoring, and preventing overuse of the reefs. When the projects to protect the artificial and natural reefs are considered separately, visitor and resident reef users are willing to pay $9 million to protect the artificial reefs and $42 million to protect the natural reefs.

Visitor and resident reef users in Broward County are willing to pay $126 million per year to maintain both the artificial reefs and the natural reefs in their current condition by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to reefs from anchoring, and preventing overuse of the reefs. When the projects to protect the artificial and natural reefs are considered separately, visitor and resident reef users are willing to pay $56 million to protect the artificial reefs and $83 million to protect the natural reefs.

Visitor and resident reef users in Miami-Dade County are willing to pay $47 million per year to maintain both the artificial reefs and the natural reefs in their current condition by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to reefs from anchoring, and preventing overuse of the reefs. When the projects to protect the artificial and natural reefs are considered separately, visitor and resident reef users are willing to pay $10 million to protect the artificial reefs and $47 million to protect the natural reefs.

Visitor and resident reef users in Monroe County are willing to pay $52 million per year to maintain both the artificial reefs and the natural reefs in their current condition by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to reefs from anchoring, and preventing overuse of the reefs.



When the projects to protect the artificial and natural reefs are considered separately, visitor and resident reef users are willing to pay $9.75 million to protect the artificial reefs and $57.49 million to protect the natural reefs.

The sum of the values for the individual reef programs can be different from the value for the combined programs. This is because some respondents are not willing to pay the sum of the values for the individual programs to finance the combined programs. This is primarily due to income constraints as higher bid values are provided to the respondents. So bear in mind that willingness to pay for the combined programs is a different scenario from willingness to pay for the individual programs.

The capitalized value of the reef user values is the present value of the annual values calculated at three percent discount rate. It represents the “stock” value analogous to land market values. The capitalized reef user value for all southeast Florida reefs is between $8.5 billion and $10.5 billion. Bear in mind that this value only includes the value that reef users place on the reefs and does not include the values that non-reef-users place on the reefs or the economic contribution of the reefs. From previous studies of resource valuation, the total value to non-reef users is likely to be much larger than the total value to reef users. The estimation of this value was not part of this study.

Reef users’ willingness to pay to invest in and maintain “new” artificial reefs is provided in Table 2.3.3-2. The use value per person-day is the value per day or a portion of a day of artificial reef use. In Palm Beach County, reef users are willing to pay $4.7 million annually for this program in Palm Beach County. Broward County reef users are willing to pay $15.7 million per year while Miami-Dade County reef users are willing to pay $4.1 million per year. Monroe County reef users are willing to pay $2.3 million annually per year to fund this program in Monroe County.



Table 2.3.3-1 (Residents and Visitors) Annual Use Value From June 2000 to May 2001 and Capitalized Value associated With Reef Use

Southeast Florida

Item Palm Beach

County Broward County Miami-Dade

County Monroe County Total All Reefs - Artificial and Natural Person-Days of Reef Use (in millions) 4.24 9.44 9.17 5.46 28.30 Use Value Per Person-Day $7.34 $13.35 $5.12 $9.48 $9.04 Annual Use Value in million dollars $31.11 $126.03 $46.93 $51.78 $255.81 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate in billion dollars $1.0 $4.2 $1.6 $1.7 $8.5

Artificial Reefs Person-Days of Reef Use (in millions) 1.41 3.98 2.95 1.58 9.91 Use Value Per Person-Day $6.47 $14.07 $3.50 $6.18 $8.59 Annual Use Value in million dollars $9.09 $55.94 $10.33 $9.75 $85.13 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate in billion dollars

$0.3 $1.9 $0.3 $0.3 $2.8

Natural Reefs Person-Days of Reef Use (in millions) 2.83 5.46 6.21 3.88 18.39 Use Value Per Person-Day $14.86 $15.16 $7.54 $14.82 $12.47 Annual Use Value in million dollars $42.10 $82.88 $46.86 $57.46 $229.24 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate in billion dollars $1.4 $2.8 $1.6 $1.9 $7.6 a Use Value per Person per Day is the average among the counties. Note: Use value per person day means per person day of artificial, natural or all reef use. Values for all reefs taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 38 of

Visitor Boater Survey: Suppose that both of the above plans to maintain the natural and artificial reefs in southeast Florida were put together into a combined program...If you total costs for this trip would have been $___ higher, would you have been willing to pay this amount to maintain the artificial and natural reefs. Values for artificial reefs taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 36 pertaining only to a program to maintain the existing artificial reefs in their current condition. Values for natural reefs taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 34 pertaining only to a program to maintain the natural reefs in their current condition. Therefore, the sum of the values for the individual reef programs will be less than the value for both programs.



Table 2.3.3-2 (Residents and Visitors) Estimated Use Value of Investing in and Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs

Southeast Florida

Item Palm Beach


Miami-Dade County

Monroe County Total

Person-Days of Artificial Reef Use (in millions) 1.41 3.98 2.95 1.58 9.91


Annual Use Values for "New" Artificial Reefs in million dollars $4.74 $15.70 $4.07 $2.31 $26.82

Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate in million dollars $157.8 $523.4 $135.8 $76.9 $894.0

a Use Value per Person per Day is the average among the counties. Note: Use value per person-day is a day or portion of a day of artificial reef use.



2.3.4 Demographic Information This section summarizes and compares the demographic characteristics of visitor and resident reef users. These characteristics were obtained from the resident boater survey and the visitor boater survey. They are summarized in Tables 2.3.4-1 and 2.3.4-2.

Table 2.3.4-1 Demographic Characteristics of Resident and Visitor Reef-Users in Southeast Florida,

2000 Median Age of Respondent Resident Reef-Users Visitor Reef-Users Palm Beach 48 41 Broward 48 39 Miami-Dade 46 41 Monroe 54 44

Resident Reef-Users Visitor Reef-Users Sex Of Respondent Male Female Male Female Palm Beach 91% 9% 79% 21% Broward 92% 8% 77% 23% Miami-Dade 93% 7% 75% 25% Monroe 86% 14% 70% 30%

Resident Reef-Users Visitor Reef-Users Race Of Respondent White Black Other White Black Other Palm Beach 97% 0% 3% 94% 2% 4% Broward 93% 2% 5% 89% 7% 4% Miami-Dade 88% 1% 11% 83% 7% 10% Monroe 94% 0.2% 5.8% 95% 2% 3%

Percent Hispanic/Latino Resident Reef-Users Visitor Reef-Users Palm Beach 4% 5% Broward 5% 13% Miami-Dade 33% 29% Monroe 7% 8%

Median Household Income Resident Reef-Users Visitor Reef-Users Palm Beach $71,695 $87,500 Broward $72,310 $87,500 Miami-Dade $69,722 $55 Monroe $56,393 $87,500



Table 2.3.4-2 Boater Profile of Resident and Visitor Reef-Users in Southeast Florida, 2000 Average Years Boating in South Florida County Residents Visitors

Palm Beach 21 9.2 Broward 22 6.7 Miami-Dade 25 6.7 Monroe 22 7.4

Average Length of Boat Used for Salt Water Activities in Feet County Residents Visitors


Percentage of Respondents Who Belong to Fishing and/or Diving Clubs County Residents Visitors

Palm Beach 20% 24% Broward 19% 12% Miami-Dade 18% 6% Monroe 15% 11%

Hwd:40289R047.doc 3-1 Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida

Final Report

Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Value of Reefs in Palm Beach County

This chapter describes the Socioeconomic Value of Artificial and Natural Reefs in Palm Beach County to residents and visitors. For both groups this chapter discusses the following topics.

§ Volume of user activity on both artificial and natural reefs off Palm Beach County;

§ Economic Contribution of artificial and natural reefs to the county’s economy;

§ Resident and visitor “use value” associated with recreating on artificial and natural reefs in Palm Beach County; and,

§ Demographic and boater profile of reef users in Palm Beach County.

For residents, their opinions regarding the existence of “no-take” zones as a tool to protect existing artificial and natural reefs are provided.

3.1 Residents This section presents the estimated socioeconomic values associated with resident boater use of the reefs off the coast of Palm Beach County. Resident boaters are those individuals who live within Palm Beach County and who use a boat that is owned by a resident of the county to visit the reef system. Resident boats used to visit the reef system are defined as those greater than 16 feet in length and registered with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

3.1.1 User Activity There are two fundamental measures of user activity of natural resources such as the reef systems. First, user activity can be measured by the number of boating trips that individuals take to spend part or a full day visiting the reef system. The number of boating trips is usually called “party-days” since each boat carries one to numerous individuals depending for the most part on the size of the boat. Party-days are measured in this analysis because the party is the principal spending unit. When the average number of individuals in a party is multiplied by the number of party-days, the number of “person-days” is obtained. This second measure of boating activity is important because it determined how many people will be fishing and/or diving on a particular reef. Person-days are of particular significance when estimating the “use value” of the reef system. Both measures of user activity are discussed below.

To measure user activity associated with the reef system, the numbers of party-days and person-days spent on artificial and natural reefs off the coast of Palm Beach County were estimated. Most residents use their own boats to facilitate this recreational pursuit. The use of party boats and charter rentals by residents was not estimated. In 1999-2000, there were 56,924 registered pleasure boats in Palm Beach County according to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (2001). These pleasure craft were divided into the following size classes:

3.0 Socioeconomic Value of Reefs in Palm Beach County


Boat Size Category (Length of Boat in Feet)

Number of Boats

Percentage of Total

Cumulative Percentage

Less than 12 feet 10,900 19% 19% 12 feet to 15' 11'' 9,529 17% 36% 16 feet to 25' 11" 28,257 50% 86% 26 feet to 39' 11" 6,612 12% 98% 40 feet to 64' 11" 1,488 2% 100% 65 feet to 109' 11" 129 0% 100% Greater than 110 ft 9 0% 100% Total 56,924 100%

The registered pleasure craft in Palm Beach County is the global universe under consideration. However, two adjustments were made to derive the “target population” for this analysis. First, sampling was restricted to pleasure craft over 16 feet in length. This was due to expert opinion that indicated very few pleasure craft under 16 feet could reach the reef system. Thus, the target population was restricted to pleasure craft 16 feet and longer so that non-reef users would be avoided and to increase the sample size on that segment of the boating population with the highest propensity to use the reef system. Therefore, the target population was reduced from 56,924 registered boats to 36,495 registered boats. However, not everyone with a relatively large boat used an artificial and/or natural reef in the last twelve months. In fact, the survey results indicated that only 53.6 percent of these larger vessels used the Palm Beach County reef system in the last 12 months or 19,561 pleasure craft. Finally, about one-half of one percent of registered boats in the target population had a residence somewhere outside of Palm Beach County, which further reduced the target population of resident boats to 19,463 pleasure craft.

On average, the respondents to the mail survey indicated that over a 12-month period (1999-2000) they and their party used the reef system 40 days. While using the reef system, respondents indicated they were involved with three main recreational activities - fishing, snorkeling, and scuba diving. Based upon this information, it was estimated that during this 12-month period (i.e., 1999-2000), 778,532 “party-days” were spent on the reef system (40 party days times 19,463 pleasure craft).

In conducting the mail survey of resident boaters, reef-users were asked to distribute their 40 reef using party-days in two ways. First, they were asked to distribute their usage among three activities as follows: (l) Fishing, (2) Snorkeling and (3) Scuba Diving. Second, respondents were asked to distribute each of these recreational activities between artificial and natural reefs. Table 3.1.1-1 shows the final distribution of party-days and the derivation of person-days. With respect to party-days, the activity of fishing on artificial and natural reefs constituted 52 percent of all party-days followed by scuba diving (27 percent) and snorkeling (21 percent). For all the recreational activities on reefs, there was an obvious preference for natural reefs as 64 percent of the party-days were concentrated on natural reefs. The strongest intensity of natural reef use was found among the scuba divers where 72 percent of the party-days were spent at natural reefs.



Multiplying the average size of the party by the number of party-days spent on the reef, as summarized in Table 3.1.1-1, resulted in the number of person-days. However, one important adjustment was made to the average party size to account for nonresidents in calculating resident person-days. For this analysis, the number of nonresidents per party (approximately 20 percent) was subtracted out of the average party size. Thus, the number of person-days summarized in Table 3.1.1-1 was determined using the resident party size. The resident party size does not vary appreciably among the various reef-related recreational activities and averages about 3.82 residents per party. Because of this, the distribution of person-days among the activities is similar to the distribution of party-days. For example, saltwater fishing on reefs yielded 1.55 million person-days or 52 percent of all person-days and party-days enjoyed on the reef system off the coast of Palm Beach County during the 12-month period (1999-2000).

The total number of person-days spent on the reefs in Palm Beach County was estimated at about 3 million. While party-days gives a “boater dimension” to activity in and around the reef system, person days yield a “people dimension” to the use of the reef system. The former is especially useful in judging the adequacy of the boating infrastructure such as marinas and boat ramps while the latter is used in calculating recreational value of the reef system. The estimates of user activity will now be used to evaluate the economic contribution of resident reef-users to the Palm Beach County economy.

3.1.2 Economic Contribution To fully understand the economic contribution of reef use in Palm Beach County, it is important to recognize what factors influence the demand for boating. This will help in understanding the nature of boating in this area and how it relates to the use of artificial and natural reefs. In a study by Bell and Leeworthy (1986), the authors found that the demand for boats in a particular area was influenced by boat prices, population and per capita income. Therefore, the expectation was for a greater demand for boats (i.e. number of registered pleasure craft) in counties with larger populations that are relatively affluent as measured by real per capita income.

The number of registered boats in any county is therefore critical in assessing the adequacy of the boating infrastructure such as boat ramps and artificial and natural reefs. This topic was recently addressed in the 2000 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreational Plan (2001) issued by the Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. However, this report did not assess the adequacy of the reef system in the various regions of Florida. This section will consider only the demand for boating in Palm Beach County, not the adequacy of the boating infrastructure. This will give the reader an overview of boating characteristics in Palm Beach County and valuable information necessary to assess the adequacy of the boating infrastructure. The overview includes a discussion of the county’s population, per capita income, industrial structure and its infrastructure related to saltwater boating. This will also give a background by which to assess the results of this study.



Table 3.1.1-1 (Residents) Estimated Resident User Activity As Measured by Party-Days and Person-Days on

Artificial and Natural Reefs off Palm Beach County, Florida, 2000 Number and Distribution of Party-Days by

Activity and Reef Type Number and Distribution of Person-Days by Activity and Reef Type

Activity/ Type Of Reef

Number of Party-Days

Percentage of Party-Days per Activity by Reef

Type

Percentage of Total Party-

Days per Activity

Resident Party-Size by Activity

Number of Resident Person-Days1 by Activity

by Reef Type

Percentage of Person-Days

per Activity by Reef Type

Percentage of Total Person-Days

per Activity Fishing 52% 3.83 52% Artificial 146,000 36% 558,000 36% Natural 259,000 64% 992,000 64% Subtotal 405,000 100% 1,551,000 100% Snorkeling 21% 3.77 21% Artificial 77,000 47% 290,000 47% Natural 87,000 53% 327,000 53% Subtotal 164,000 100% 616,000 100% Scuba Diving 27% 3.86 27% Artificial 59,000 28% 227,000 28% Natural 151,000 72% 584,000 72% Subtotal 210,000 100% 811,000 100% All Activities Artificial 282,000 36% 1,075,000 Natural 497,000 64% 1,903,000 Total 779,000 100% 2,978,000 1 Resident person-days is calculated by multiplying the number of party-days by the average resident party size.



Palm Beach County is on the southeast coast of Florida bordering the Atlantic Ocean. West Palm Beach is the principal city within this county. In 1999, the resident population was estimated at 1,042,196 individuals; the third largest county in Florida as measured by population. Over the last ten years, the population in Palm Beach County has grown by 20.7 percent making it the thirty-ninth fastest growing county in Florida (out of 67 counties). The County’s population is projected to increase by 29.5 percent by the year by 2015.1 In-migration from Broward County to Palm Beach County, as in the past, will account for over 94 percent of this growth. Thus, this county’s population growth will depend heavily on individuals moving into the county.

In 1998, Palm Beach County had a per capita income of $40,044 placing it third among the 67 counties in the State of Florida. This per capita income was over 49 percent higher than the state average of $26,845. The higher per capita income in Palm Beach County is largely due to three factors. First, the population receives nearly $16,000 per capita in dividends, interest and rents. Thus, the holding of capital assets such as stocks, bonds and property largely accounts for the relative affluence of the residents of Palm Beach County. Second, income maintenance programs and retirement benefits exceed the state average and add to the per capita income received by residents of this county. Third, average earnings of those employed exceed the average earnings of workers in Florida by about 12 percent. Palm Beach County appears to be a bimodal population where one segment is characterized by wealthy retirees living off accumulated capital assets while the other segment of the population is employed in industries paying wages above the average when compared to the State of Florida. A relatively high per capita income is a favorable factor leading to the purchase of recreational durable goods such as large pleasure boats capable of reaching artificial and natural reefs in the Atlantic Ocean.

In 1998, there were 493,000 persons employed in Palm Beach County earning $17.0 billion in wage and salaries. Over the last ten years, employment in this county grew by 20.7 percent, which corresponds exactly to the rate of growth in population as discussed above. Measured by earnings, the largest industries in 1998, were services (35.6 percent); finance, insurance and real estate (13.6 percent); and retail trade (10.2 percent). Of particular note, the county’s economy includes a substantial number of persons employed in the tourist-related services such as lodging, amusement and recreation. Nearly 22,000 persons were employed in these industries in Palm Beach County in 1998. The attraction of tourists to the county provides part of the county’s economic base as evidenced by boating visitors using artificial and natural reefs along the coasts as discussed later in this chapter.

The infrastructure supporting various coastal or saltwater forms of boating recreation in Palm Beach County include the following (FDEP, 2001)(Pybas, 1997):

1. Boat Ramps: 35 with a total of 46 boating lanes;

2. Marinas: 66 with 2,758 wet slips and moorings;

1 University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.



3. Other Facilities: 2,264 boat dry storage berths;

4. Artificial Reefs: 32 artificial reefs ranging from 0.7 to 3.4 nautical miles from shore.

Using the estimated number of person-days discussed above, the average resident person-days accommodated at each artificial reef was estimated to be 35,000 during the 12-month period (i.e. 1,075,000 person-days on artificial reefs divided by 32 artificial reefs). This amounts to nearly 95 individual reef-users per day. The number of person-days is obviously higher on weekends and lower during the week and does not include visitors, which will be discussed below. It is beyond the scope of this study to speculate on the carrying capacity of each reef or where congestion diminishes user or recreational value.

In 2000, there were 57,000 recreational boats (FDHSMV, 2001) registered in Palm Beach County or 1 boat for every 18 persons. In the State of Florida as a whole, there was 1 registered pleasure boat for every 13 residents. Despite the relatively large population and high per capita income in Palm Beach County and the artificial and natural reefs along its shore, the demand for recreational boating is somewhat less in the county than in the rest of Florida as measured by the ratio of registered boats to population. The county’s demand factors combined with the saltwater coastal nature of this county would lead one to predict a much higher ratio of registered boats to people.

The explanation for this finding is usually found on the supply side where there is crowding or congestion at access points to the water (e.g., boat ramps) and access points to the recreational resources such as artificial and natural reefs offshore. This increases the cost of recreational boating and reduces the demand for pleasure boats. The results of this study will be useful to testing “working hypotheses” regarding demand and supply side issues.

Using a mail survey, 3,000 registered boaters in Palm Beach County were contacted at random using the survey instrument provided in Appendix A. The participants’ addresses were obtained from a registered boater database compiled on tape by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Over six hundred registered boaters from Palm Beach County responded to the survey of which 54 percent (330 pleasure craft owners) used reefs in their county of residence in a 12-month period (1999-2000). Thus, the party-days and spending by boaters estimated in this section refers only to those residents who used artificial and/or natural reefs off the Palm Beach County coast during the 12-month period from December 1999 to November 2000.

To estimate the economic contribution of reef-user spending on the Palm Beach County economy, the respondents were asked to estimate party spending during their last boating trip to visit the reef system. It was assumed that each boating trip would involve only one day since the residents are in their own county. The results of the survey allowed the average total spending per party by recreational activity for residents of Palm Beach County to be estimated as follows:



Average Resident Spending per Party for Palm Beach County Reef-Users

Activity Estimated Spending

per Party per Day Percentage of

Residents per Party Estimated Spending per Resident Party per Day

(1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) * (3)

Fishing $377.44 79% $298.18 Snorkeling $198.42 80% $158.74 Scuba Diving $273.40 85% $232.39

Resident fishers using the county’s reefs spent the most per day while resident snorkelers spent the least per day. Expenditures for fuel, tackle and bait made fishing a more expensive recreational activity than snorkeling. Detailed expenditures on particular items are discussed below and a more disaggregated analysis can be found in the Technical Appendix to this report. Please note that the total resident spending per party-day, as calculated in column 4, does not include spending by visitors. Approximately 15 to 21 percent of the typical party in Palm Beach County includes nonresidents. The simplifying assumption was made that these visitors would pay their fair share of the trip costs. Therefore, visitors are assumed to pay a fair proportion of the trip costs such as boat fuel, restaurants and bait, for example. The resident component probably pays for more than indicated above; however, it was conservatively assumed that costs were equally shared between residents and their guests.

To derive the economic contribution of a particular reef-related recreational activity, one must briefly return to Table 3.1.1-1 discussed above. This table shows the number of party-days and person-days associated with reef use over the past 12-months. For example, the recreational activity of fishing generated about 405,000 party-days on all reefs off Palm Beach County. According to the resident spending per party discussed above, fishers spent $298 per trip. Thus, annual expenditures for reef-related fishing was estimated at $120.7 million dollars per year in Palm Beach County (i.e. $298.18 times 404,837). Based upon the distribution of party-days, about $43.5 million was spent while using artificial reefs while the balance ($77.2 million) was spent while using natural reefs by recreational fishers.

Table 3.1.2-1 shows the economic contribution of reef-related recreational pursuits off the Palm Beach County coast. Residents spent an estimated $195.5 million during the twelve-month period from December 1999 to November 2000. About two-thirds of this amount was spent while using natural reefs ($126.2 million) while the balance ($69.3 million) was spent while using the artificial reefs. Nearly 62 percent of total spending or $120.7 million was spent on reef-related recreational fishing while $48.8 million (25 percent) was spent on reef-related scuba diving and $26.0 million (13 percent) was spent on reef-related snorkeling.

It is important that we further clarify the economic contribution of resident boaters from Palm Beach County. The engine of economic growth for any region is found in its export industries such as tourism in Palm Beach County. This has a “multiplier” effect on the region as discussed in the section focused on “visitors”. As income from exports flows through the region, it creates



local income (e.g., money paid for haircuts by residents) and a demand for imports (e.g., TV sets since Palm Beach County does not have TV manufacturers).

The local income is spent on everything from marina services for boats to dining out at local restaurants. Thus, the spending by residents in conjunction with reef use represents the choice of residents to recreate locally as opposed to leaving the area to recreate somewhere else. The reef system keeps the “locals” in the county and enlarges the economy by $195.5 million in local spending. However, in contrast to visitors entering the county, there is no multiplier effect from residents spending their income locally. Generally, the more money kept in the local economy enlarges the regional multiplier since there is less “leakage” through spending on imports or residents leaving the county for recreational pursuits in other areas such as Key West or Orlando. Just how much the regional multiplier is enlarged is beyond the scope of this study. However, it is safe to say that construction of artificial reefs has the potential of keeping more business in Palm Beach County. For ardent reef-users, the absence of reefs off the coast of Palm Beach County would certainly divert more residents to counties north and south of this area to the economic detriment of the county.

Reef-related local spending discussed above is, in itself, only a vehicle to create jobs and wages in the local community. To evaluate the industries that benefit from this reef-related spending, reef-users were asked to break their spending into 12 categories such as boat fuel, ice, tackle and marina fees. For each of the twelve categories, resident reef-related spending was matched to data published in the 1997 U.S. Census of Business. For example, spending on boat fuel was matched up with gasoline stations in Palm Beach County. It was found that each gasoline station employee “sells” $312,757 per year out of which they are paid about $15,000 or about 4.8 percent of their sales. The annual salary may seem low, but this figure represents the average salary of full and part time employees with a relatively low skill level. Thus, one job paying approximately $15,000 per year is generated for every $312,757 in gasoline purchased for reef-related recreation by residents.

This rather simple procedure was followed for each of the 12 spending categories. Each category varies greatly in labor intensity. The higher the sales-to-employment ratio, the less labor intensive the industry. For example, restaurants are relatively labor intensive while gasoline stations are highly automated and consequently need relatively few employees.

Table 3.1.2-1 shows the estimated wages and employment generated from resident spending on reef-related recreational activities in Palm Beach County. The $195.5 million in annual resident reef-related spending generated about $22.5 million in annual wages supporting 1,503 employees.



Table 3.1.2-1 (Residents) Reef-Related Expenditures, Wages and Employment Generated by Resident Boating

Activities in Palm Beach County, Florida, 2000

Type of Activity/ Type of Reef Expenditures

(Million $) Wages

(Million $) Employment (Number of Full and Part-Time Jobs)

Artificial Reef Fishing $43.5 $5.0 330 Snorkeling $12.2 $1.4 103 Scuba Diving $13.7 $1.5 103 Subtotal $69.3 $8.0 536 Percentage Attributed to Artificial Reefs 35% 36% 36% Natural Reef Fishing $77.2 $8.9 587 Snorkeling $13.8 $1.6 116 Scuba Diving $35.2 $3.9 265 Subtotal $126.2 $14.4 968 Percentage Attributable to Natural Reefs 65% 64% 64% Total All Reefs Fishing $120.7 $14.0 917 Snorkeling $26.0 $3.1 218 Scuba Diving $48.8 $5.4 368 Total All Reefs/All Activities $195.5 $22.5 1,503 Note: All Sub-totals and Totals are rounded. Source: Florida State University It is also important to examine the industries that benefit from reef-related resident spending. Table 3.1.2-2 shows the 12 spending categories and, as expected, reef-related expenditures are concentrated on running and storing a boat, which is the case in Palm Beach County. Expenditures on boat oil and gas constituted 25 percent of all spending followed by marina slip rentals and dockage fees (18 percent). These two categories account for 43 percent of all reef-related spending. In addition, food and beverages from restaurants and stores were both 8 percent (a total of 16 percent) of total reef-related resident spending. In terms of dollar figures, resident reef-users spent over $35 million during a 12-month period on items produced by the marina industry. According to the U.S. Census of Business (1997), the marina industry in Palm Beach County grossed about $99 million in sales. Thus, resident reef-users may account for as much as one-third of these sales. Marina industry sales would also come from resident non-reef-users and visitors keeping their boats in local marinas.



Table 3.1.2-2 (Residents) Detailed Expenditure Pattern Supporting Employment and Wages by All Resident Reef-Users in Palm Beach County, Florida, 2000

Expenditure Item Expenditures

(Million $)

Percentage of Total

Expenditures

Employment (Number of Full and

Part-Time Jobs)

Percentage of Total

Employment Wages

(Million $)

Percentage of Total Wages

1. Boat gas and oil $49.62 25% 159 11% $2.37 11%

2. Marina slip rentals and dockage fees $35.01 18% 313 21% $5.98 27%

3. Food and beverages from restaurants/bars

$16.06 8% 428 28% $4.40 20%

4. Food and beverages from stores $14.94 8% 109 7% $1.57 7%

5. Tackle $10.59 5% 76 5% $1.35 6%

6. Bait $9.16 5% 66 4% $1.17 5%

7. Gas for auto $9.00 5% 28 2% $0.43 2%

8. Ice $4.81 2% 15 1% $0.23 1%

9. Equipment rentals $4.68 2% 31 2% $0.66 3%

10. Boat ramp and parking fees $3.85 2% 34 2% $0.66 3%

11. Sundries (e.g. Sun screen, sea sickness pills, etc.)

$5.40 3% 35 2% $0.51 2%

12. All other $32.39 17% 209 14% $3.12 14%

Total $195.51 100% 1,504 100% $22.45 100%



In terms of employment, reef-related resident spending created proportionately more employment in marinas and restaurants because, as discussed above, these industries are relatively labor intensive. Although ranked number one as a component of spending, gasoline stations are a capital- intensive industry not conducive to the creation of jobs. That is, spending on boat oil and gas accounted for one-fourth of all spending, but only one in ten jobs. As might be expected, wages follow employment. That is, the higher the percentage of spending on labor intensive industries, the higher the total wages generated. However, some industries employ highly skilled persons such as marinas where the wages paid are proportionately higher than employment as indicated in Table 3.1.2-2.

3.1.3 Use Value Natural and artificial reefs contribute to the recreational experience of residents (i.e. fishing, snorkeling and scuba diving). Traveling to and enjoying a reef system involves economic costs including the cost of boat fuel, bait and tackle. This was discussed above. However, the market does not measure the total economic value of reef systems. There is no organized market in which to buy and sell the use of reefs because these resources are not owned by one individual but by society as a whole. Thus, the absence of private property rights creates a challenge in valuing natural and artificial reefs. Yet, the general public does pay for the deployment of artificial reefs and the protection of natural reefs. So, there must be some unmeasured value of providing the reef system to the general public. Since reef-users are attracted to reefs for recreational pursuits, we call this unmeasured value “use value”. For example, one could engage in scuba diving without the benefit of a natural or artificial reef. The addition of a reef presumably adds some “value” to the scuba diver’s recreational experience. More specifically, this analysis evaluates the incremental use value of having a reef system off the shore of Palm Beach County.

The contingent valuation (CV) method asks users about their willingness to pay for a reef system contingent on specified conditions (e.g., use of funds for various reef related improvements). This CV method has been employed in numerous studies to estimate use values from deep-sea fishing to deer hunting.2 The reef-using respondents were asked a series of CV questions dealing with their willingness to pay for the reef program. The respondents were asked to consider the total cost for their last boating trip to the reefs including travel expenses, lodging, and all boating expenses. Then, the respondent was asked:

“If your total cost per trip would have been $______ higher, would you have been willing to pay this amount to maintain the (kind of reef – artificial, natural or both) in their existing condition?”

Payment amounts (or cost increases) of $10, $50, $100, $200, and $500 were inserted into the survey instrument (where the blank is in the question above). The payment amounts were rotated from respondent to respondent. Thus, some respondents received questions asking about

2 See Clawson and Knetch (1966).



a $10 increase while others were asked about a $50, $100 or even $500 increase in trip cost. The purpose of these questions was to establish the user value per day for artificial and natural reefs.

The above willingness to pay question was asked of each respondent in three forms: (l) natural reefs separately; (2) artificial reefs separately and (3) a combination of natural and artificial reefs. For the combined program, the randomly assigned cost increases presented in the previous paragraph were doubled. Because the primary spending unit is the “party”, the willingness to pay response referred to an increase in trip cost to the entire party.

To estimate values per party per trip (a day and a trip are equal for residents), the data were pooled for all four counties. A logit model was used to estimate the “per party per trip” values. The logit model tested for differences in use value by county, activity, household income, age of respondent, years of boating experience in South Florida, race/ethnicity, sex, length of boat owned, and whether a member of a fishing or diving club.

Separate models were estimated for each of the four reef programs (e.g., natural reefs, existing artificial reefs, both natural and artificial reefs and new artificial reefs). For the natural reefs, existing artificial reefs and the combined programs, the only significant differences found were for those with income greater than $100,000. This group had a higher willingness to pay than other reef users. There were no other differences found. The logit model did not produce different per party per trip values by county, and because party sizes were not significantly different by county the estimated values per person-trip were also the same across counties for each of the reef valuation programs3. The estimated per party per trip (day) values were $32.55 for the natural reefs, $11.31 for the artificial reefs and $12.94 for the combined program.

To estimate total annual use values for each county, the number of party-days was multiplied by the estimated values per party per day. The value per person-day was then estimated by dividing the total annual use value by the total number of person-days. This normalized value per person-day can be compared with results from other studies.

The results are consistent with the idea that natural reefs are preferred to artificial reefs. For Palm Beach County residents, the average per person-day use value of the natural reefs was $8.50 versus $2.96 for artificial reefs. Total use is also higher for natural reefs versus artificial reefs. Palm Beach County residents’ natural reef use was over 1.9 million person-days versus about 1.1 million person-days for artificial reefs. This translated into an estimated total annual use value of $16.2 million for natural reefs and $3.2 million for artificial reefs. Capitalizing the annual use values using a three percent discount rate yields asset values of about $539 million for the natural reefs and $106 million for the artificial reefs. These results are summarized in Table 3.1.3-1.



Table 3.1.3-1 (Residents) Estimated Use Value of Artificial and Natural Reefs off the Coast of

Palm Beach County, Florida, 2000

Reef Type/Activity Person-days

(Millions)

Annual User Value

(Millions $)

User Value Per Person-day

($)

Asset Value at 3%

(Millions $) Natural Reef Maintenance 1.903 $16.18 $8.50 $539.3 Snorkeling 0.327 $2.82 $8.63 $94.0 Scuba Diving 0.584 $4.93 $8.43 $164.2 Fishing 0.992 $8.43 $8.50 $281.1 Artificial Reef Maintenance 1.075 $3.18 $2.96 $106.1 Snorkeling 0.290 $0.87 $3.00 $29.0 Scuba Diving 0.227 $0.66 $2.93 $22.2 Fishing 0.558 $1.65 $2.95 $54.9 Natural & Artificial Reef Maintenance

2.978 $10.07 $3.38 $335.8

Snorkeling 0.616 $2.11 $3.43 $70.5 Scuba Diving 0.811 $2.72 $3.35 $90.7 Fishing 1.550 $5.24 $3.38 $174.6 New Artificial Reefs 1.075 $0.78 $0.72 $25.9 Snorkeling 0.290 $0.28 $0.95 $9.2 Scuba Diving 0.227 $0.21 $0.93 $7.1 Fishing 0.558 $0.29 $0.52 $9.6

Annual use value represents the annual flow of total use value (i.e., the recreational benefits) to the reef-using public. From a public policy point of view, government spends money on the protection and management of the valuable resources of the natural and artificial reefs. This includes investments for such things as deployment of new artificial reefs and enhancements of natural reefs. In addition, government entities incur variable costs each year to support marine patrol, biologists, planners and even contracts with economists to help carry out the mission of protecting the existing reef system. These costs can be compared with the annual flow of total use value of the reef to determine if this is indeed a wise investment.


One can see the usefulness of measuring the economic benefits of natural reef systems to policy makers in justifying public budgets for such programs. If protected, the use value for natural



reefs will flow into perpetuity. Using a real discount rate of 3 percent, it is estimated that the capitalized use value of the natural reefs off Palm Beach County is $539 million. Why is this important? Natural reef systems are not privately owned, but are common property resources. If a region or a nation were preparing a balance sheet showing its assets and liabilities, the asset value of the reef system would need to be included. This analysis provides an estimate of the capitalized value of the natural reef system to reef users. Bear in mind that this value only includes the value that reef users place on the reefs and does not include the values that non-reef-users place on the reefs or the economic contribution of the reefs. The estimation of the value of the reefs to non-reef users was not part of this study.

As discussed above, artificial reefs have a use value per person of less than that of natural reefs, as one would expect. However, preservation of the existing artificial reef system of Palm Beach County produces an annual use value of over $3 million. Again, this is for the maintenance of these reefs. The capitalized value of the artificial reef system off Palm Beach County is estimated at $106 million. If users were obstructed from getting to Palm Beach County’s artificial reefs, an estimate of damages to the reef users would be either the annual use value lost if users are temporarily obstructed or the capitalized value if users were permanently cut-off from using the artificial reefs.

The resident survey included a question to solicit resident reef users’ willingness-to-pay for new artificial reefs. The question is as follows:

“Local and state government agencies are being asked to evaluate how users of artificial reefs value new artificial reefs. Artificial reef programs cost money. Suppose that the government proposed that all users of the artificial reefs would pay for all newly constructed reefs. Fishermen and divers with their own boats would pay for a decal as part of their boat registration and/or, if they used a charter/party boat or a rental boat (pay operation), they would pay for the costs through higher fees charged by the pay operation. The money would go into a trust fund that could only be used for the construction and maintenance of artificial reefs in southeast Florida.”

14. Would you be willing to pay $ ________ per year when you renew your boat registration and/or the amount in higher fees to a charter/party boat or rental boat operation to fund this program?

Payment amounts of $5, $10, $20, $30, $50 and $100 were assigned randomly. The survey results were statistically analyzed using the logit model.

The logit model used to estimate willingness to pay for a program that provides new artificial reefs found some statistically significant differences in use value as socioeconomic characteristics change. Resident artificial reef users in Palm Beach and Broward counties had higher willingness to pay than resident artificial reef users in Miami-Dade and Monroe counties. Snorkelers and scuba divers had higher use values than those who participated in fishing



activities. The only other statistically significant variable was household income. As household income levels increased so did willingness to pay for new artificial reefs. On a per party per day basis, the estimated values ranged from a high of $3.60 for snorkelers and scuba divers who use artificial reefs to a low of $1.98 for fishers who use artificial reefs.

As with the other three programs, the estimated per party per day values were multiplied by the total party-days spent on artificial reefs by artificial reefs users in the county to get total annual use value for the county. The total annual use values were then divided by the total annual person-days of artificial reef use in the county to get an estimate of the value per person-day. This “new artificial reef” value per person-day can be compared with results from other studies.

On a per person-day basis, the estimated values ranged from a low of 52 cents for those fishing to a high of 95 cents for those who participated in snorkeling off Palm Beach County. Across all activities, the average value for new artificial reefs was 72 cents per person-day.

In terms of total annual value among all artificial reef users, fishers have the highest willingness to pay for new artificial reefs. The total amount of artificial reef use more than compensates for the lower value per person-day associated with fishers. Across all activities, total annual user value is over $777,000 with an asset value of $25.9 million.

The relatively low marginal willingness to pay of $0.72 per person-day for artificial reef expansion in comparison to artificial reef maintenance discussed above is somewhat expected. If present users do not feel that congestion on artificial reefs is a problem, they would be expected to value expansion lower than maintenance of the existing artificial reefs. However, their willingness to pay anything for expansion demonstrates some level of unhappiness with the existing number of artificial reefs off Palm Beach County. Perhaps, residents are competing with visitors for choice spots or just getting in the way of fishing and diving when arriving at an artificial reef.

3.1.4 Role of “No-Take” Zones Both the economic contribution and the use value of the reef system are based upon the management or lack thereof of these resources. There have been controversies about the wisdom of deploying, for example, artificial reefs. Opponents argue that this encourages over fishing since artificial reefs tend to concentrate fish in a smaller number of places and they become easier targets for fishers. Others find that artificial reefs serve as added habitats and thereby increase the overall biomass available to fishers. The Bell et al., (1999) study of artificial reefs in northwest Florida found that most people fell into the latter group believing that the pie got larger with the deployment of more reefs. However, other studies such as Bohnsack et al., (1997) and Grossman et al., (1997) support the opponents opinions of additional artificial reef systems.

In this section, we examine the opinions of residents on “no take” zones in the Florida Keys and other counties in southeast Florida. A no-take zone is a designated area of the reef systems in which nothing is to be taken from this area, including fish and shellfish. To provide a net



benefit, it is argued that “no-take” zones would actually increase the total pie available to users. Supporters of “no-take” zones point to the overuse of common property resources such as ocean fisheries by both recreational and commercial interests. In effect, “no-take” zones would vest the property right with the government. In theory, “no-take” zones would increase fish and coral populations to the carrying capacity of the specified area with benefits spilling over into areas used by recreational and even commercial users. Some question these alleged benefits and oppose the imposition of such zones. Therefore, as part of this study, we were asked to obtain the opinion of resident artificial and natural reef-users regarding “no-take” zones as management tools. In each of our four counties, reef-users were asked questions regarding “no-take” zones. The results for Palm Beach County are summarized in Table 3.1.4-1.

Under the National Marine Sanctuary Act, 23 areas or zones were created where the taking of anything including fish and shellfish has been prohibited since 1997 in the Florida Keys. It is reasonable to assume that residents of neighboring counties may have formed an opinion about this management tool. In addition, the “not in my backyard view” was also tested by asking respondents for their opinions on “no take” zones in Palm Beach County. Over 65 percent of the respondents in Palm Beach County are willing to have “no take” zones off the shore of their county. Respondents are also willing to extend this concept southward to Broward and Miami-Dade Counties with nearly 65 percent supporting this expansion according to the results shown in Table 3.1.4-1.

Table 3.1.4-1 (Residents) Opinion of Palm Beach County Residents Regarding "No Take" Zones

For Artificial and Natural Reefs, 2000

Survey Question

Percent of Respondents

Answering "Yes"


Answering "No"


Answering "Don't Know"

Sample Size

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Support existing "NO TAKE" Zones in the Florida Keys 75% 15% 10% 337

Support "NO TAKE" Zones on some reefs off shore of Palm Beach County

65% 23% 12% 335

Support "NO TAKE" Zones on some reefs off shore of Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties

65% 21% 14% 136

Average for All Responses

Median for all Responses

What Percent of natural reefs in Palm Beach County should be protected with "No Take" Zones

30% 20% 287



Finally, respondents were asked for their opinion regarding the percent of the reef system that should be included in “no take” zones. Respondents, on average, would be willing to have “no take” zones cover about 30 percent of the natural reefs off the Palm Beach County coast. Because the average may be skewed by exceptionally large answers, we also looked at the median percent of natural reefs respondents felt might be managed by the use of “no-take” zones. The median, or the midpoint between the highest and lowest answer, was 20 percent of the natural reefs. Such results will provide the public with important information regarding resident opinions of “no take” zones in Palm Beach County.

3.1.5 Demographic Information The mail survey administered to Palm Beach County residents included questions regarding demographic characteristics. The reason for collecting such information was to determine what segment of the population will gain by protecting natural and artificial reefs off the Palm Beach County coast. Respondents were asked to provide some background on both themselves and their boating experience. Thus, the survey was used to collect demographic information as well as develop a boater profile to better understand these people called resident “reef-users” in Palm Beach County. Table 3.1.5-1 presents the results from the mail survey combined with comparable information on the entire Palm Beach County population.

The owners of reef-using registered boats are slightly older than the general population of Palm Beach County. The median age of reef-users is 48 years compared to 45.5 years for the general population. Statistically speaking, there is no real difference between these two groups. However, boating appears to be a male dominated activity with about 91 percent of the respondents indicating they were male compared to the general population of which 48 percent is male. Of course, there is no way to control who fills out the survey instrument once it reaches the boat owner’s residence. However, the survey is directed at the person who owns the boat. With respect to race, white individuals dominate boat ownership with 97 percent of respondents indicating they were white. This is a higher percentage than the general population which is 79 percent white in Palm Beach County. Further, a lesser percentage of respondents characterized themselves as Hispanic/Latino (4 percent) than exists in the general population (12 percent).

Nearly 53 percent of respondents indicated they had a college degree or higher level of education compared to 16 percent of the general population in 1990.3 The education level of the general population is probably much higher today than ten years ago, but may not reach the level of education reported by survey respondents. Since education and income are positively correlated, it is expected that income levels would also be higher for respondents than the general population which was indeed the case as demonstrated with the last demographic statistic in Table 3.1.5-1. The estimated median household income of respondents is about $72,000 compared to about $40,000 for the general population.

3 The U.S. Census Bureau has not yet released the educational levels for counties as part of the 2000 Census.



Of course, the purchase of a relatively large pleasure craft is also correlated with higher income as found by Bell and Leeworthy (1987) and discussed earlier in this chapter. So, this finding is not unusual.

Using the information on user activity, an estimated minimum of 74,000 residents engaged in a reef-using recreational activity in 2000. This was obtained by multiplying the number of registered boats that are estimated to be involved in reef use (19,464) by the average resident party size of 3.8 individuals. Because the turnover rate of the party is unknown, the term “minimum” is used to qualify the finding. That is, the same residents may not go boating every party trip. There are 859,812 residents in Palm Beach County over 14 years of age (i.e. about that age at which they can become boaters). In addition, it was estimated earlier in this chapter that resident reef-users cons titute approximately 8.6 percent of this boater population (73,963/859,812). However, this reef-using population will be higher if party turnover (i.e. different individuals per trip) is considered.

Table 3.1.5-1 (Residents) Demographic Characteristics and Boater Profile of Reef-Users in

Palm Beach County Florida, 2000 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents to Mail Survey Reef-Users

Palm Beach County Population

Median Age 48 46 Sex

Male 91% 48% Female 9% 52%

Race White 97% 79% Black/African American 0% 14% Hispanic/Latino 4% 12% Other 3% 7%

Education Percentage that completed College Degree or More 53% 16%

Median Household Income $71,698 $39,560 Boater Profile

Average Years of Residence in Palm Beach County 23 N/A Average Years of Boating in south Florida 21 N/A Average Length of Boat Used for Saltwater Activities (ft) 25 N/A

Percentage of Respondents that belong to fishing and/or diving clubs 20% N/A

Sample Size 336 1 Latest year that educational level attained by county is available is for 1990 from the U.S. Census Bureau. Source: Florida State University and the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1990, 2000).



The information collected in this section of the survey provides an idea of the characteristics and the magnitude of the population which are served by artificial and natural reefs off the coast of Palm Beach County. This should be valuable information for policy makers at the local and state levels.

Finally, a boater profile for Palm Beach County was developed from the survey results as follows. The typical reef-using boater has lived in Palm Beach County for 23 years and boated for 21 years. As is true of many south Florida residents, boaters moved to this county from other areas, probably out of state. The reef-using boaters in the sample own a pleasure craft of 25 feet in length on average. The weighted average of registered boats 16 feet and over in Palm Beach County is also 25 feet so it appears that the sample is particularly reflective of the population based on average boat length. Nearly 20 percent of the respondents were members of fishing and/or diving clubs. This indicator gives some idea of the intensity and degree of interest in recreational fishing, snorkeling and scuba diving off the coast of Palm Beach County, Florida.

3.2 Visitors The focus of this section is the socioeconomic value of the reefs associated with visitors to Palm Beach County. As defined in Chapter 1, Introduction, visitors to a county are defined as nonresidents of the county that they are visiting. For example, a person from Broward County visiting Palm Beach County is considered to be a visitor to Palm Beach County. Likewise, a person from New York visiting Palm Beach County is considered to be a visitor to Palm Beach County. This section provides the following values associated with visitors to Palm Beach County: reef user activity, economic contribution of the reefs, use value of the reefs and demographic information. Detailed explanations of the methods and data used to estimate these values for Palm Beach County are provided in Chapter 1: Introduction and Chapter 2: Socioeconomic Values of Reefs in Southeast Florida.

3.2.1 User Activity The activity of reef users is summarized in person-days of reef use. For visitors, the number of person-trips to use the reefs is also of interest. In order to measure person-days and person-trips associated with reef use, the total number of person-trips by all visitors to each county must be estimated. Total visitation includes visits to a county by non-residents of that county to participate in any activity be it recreation, business or family matters. The total number of person-trips by all visitors to the county was estimated using the Capacity Utilization Model. This model uses a variety of information obtained from the counties and the responses to the General Visitor Survey. The number of person-trips was then converted to the number of person-days spent by all visitors to Palm Beach County using information from the General Visitor Survey.

The number of person-trips taken by all visitors to Palm Beach County and the number of person-days these visitors spent in the county during the year 2000-2001, developed in Chapter 2.2.1, is summarized in Table 3.2.1-1.



Table 3.2.1-1 (Visitors) Number of Person-Trips and Person Days

All Visitors to Palm Beach County June 2000 to May 2001

Measure of Visitation Summer – 00 Winter – 01 Total Number of Person-Trips 1,938,327 2,313,013 4,251,340 Number of Person-Days 13,413,018 33,439,901 46,852,919

Visitors took 4.2 million person-trips to Palm Beach County from June 2000 to May 2001 and spent 47 million person-days in the county.

The number of person-trips by all visitors was used as the basis for estimating the number of person-days visitors spent using the artificial and natural reefs in each county. For each season, the number of boating person-trips is equal to the total number of person-trips by all visitors multiplied by the proportion of person-trips taken by visitors who participated in saltwater boating in the county in the past twelve months. This proportion was taken from the General Visitor Survey answer to Question 13 (Which activities and boating modes did you participate in over the past 12 months in this county?) for one boating activity per respondent divided by the total number of respondents.

To get the number of boating person-trips when the person used the reefs, the number of boating person-trips is multiplied by the proportion of boating person-trips when the respondent used the reefs. This proportion was obtained from the Visitor Boater Screening Tally sheets. These sheets indicated the proportion of boaters intercepted who used the reefs at least once in the past 12 months. The results for the summer, winter and the year are summarized in Tables 3.2.1-2.


And Visitors Who Used the Reefs in Palm Beach County Over the Past 12 Months

Season






Proportion of Boating Person Trips When the Reef was

Used for Recreationb


Summer - June 2000 to Nov. 2001

1,938,327 0.16 306,304 0.98 299,522

Winter - December 2000 to May 2001 2,313,013 0.14 330,430 0.98 323,115

Year Round - June 2000 to May 2001

4,251,340 636,734 622,637 a Saltwater Boating Only. From General Visitor Survey Answer to Question 13 (Which activities_modes did you participate in

over the past 12 months in this county) for one boating activity divided by total number of respondents. b From the Visitor Boater Tally Sheets: = 1 - (Q6/(Q6+Q7+Q8+Q10))



Of the 4,250,000 person-trips visitors took to Palm Beach County from June 2000 to May 2001, 16 percent of the trips involved saltwater boating activities in the summer and 14 percent involved saltwater boating activities in the winter. Of the resulting 637,000 boating person-trips by visitors to Palm Beach County, 98 percent of those trips involved recreational reef use. Thus, visitors who used the reefs for recreation in Palm Beach County made about 623,000 person-trips to the county from June 2000 to May 2001.

Next, the total number of person-days that visitor boaters who used the reefs spent visiting the county was estimated. This estimate is the total boating person trips when reefs were used times the average days per visit by boaters who used the reefs. The average days per visit by boaters who used the reefs was obtained from the responses to Question 10 of the Visitor Boater Survey (How many nights are you spending on this trip?) where a 1 was added to each answer to obtain number of days. The average number of days and the total person days reef users spent in Palm Beach county in 2000-2001 are provided in Table 3.2.1-3.

Table 3.2.1-3 (Visitors) Average Number of Days Visiting Palm Beach County and Total Person

Days in Palm Beach County by Visitor Boaters Who Used the Reefs June 2000 to May 2001

County Average Days Visiting the

County Per Trip Total Person Days Spent

Visiting the County

Palm Beach 5.36 3,336,923

Reef-using boaters who visited Palm Beach County spent an average of 5.36 days in the county during their trip. As a result, these visitors spent 3.3 million person-days in Palm Beach County from June 2000 to May 2001.

To allocate the total person days spent visiting the county to actual days using the artificial and natural reefs, the daily participation rates of the different boating activities were calculated using the responses to Questions 12, 15, 16 and 17 of the Visitor Boater Survey. Participation rate is the proportion of total days that respondents spent in the county in the last 12 months when the respondent actually participated in a saltwater activity and boat mode. It represents the probability that a visitor boater who uses the reefs will participate in a particular saltwater boating activity and boating mode on any given day.




To allocate the total number of days in an activity-boat mode to the use of artificial reefs versus natural reefs versus no reefs, the proportion of fishing days and the proportion of dives spent on each reef/no reef was calculated from the Visitor Boater Survey responses. Question 16 asked the respondent how many days he/she spent on the artificial reef and Question 17 asked the respondent how many days he/she spent on the natural reef. For scuba divers and snorkelers, Question 18 asked for the total number of dives and Questions 19 and 20 asked for the number of dives on artificial versus natural reefs. A dive is defined as exiting and reentering the boat and applies to both divers and snorkelers. From the responses to these questions, the proportions of fishing days spent on the artificial and natural reefs and the proportions of dives spent on the artificial and natural reefs were obtained. For fishing charter and party boats, the proportion of days spent on artificial versus natural versus no reefs was taken from the fishing-related responses to the charter/party boat operator survey for those operators who provide services in Palm Beach County.

The proportion of visitor days that visitor boaters who use the reefs participated in fishing and diving/snorkeling and the proportion of fishing days and scuba/snorkeling dives that visitor boaters spent on the artificial, natural and no reefs for Palm Beach County are presented in Table 3.2.1-4.

Table 3.2.1-4 (Visitors) Saltwater Recreational Activities from All Boating Modes

Percent of Visitor Person-Days That Reef-Using Boaters Participated in the Saltwater Recreation Activity and Percent of Fishing Days or Dives Spent on

Artificial, Natural and No Reefs from Visitor Boater Survey Palm Beach County

Percent of Activity Days or Dives On:

Activity Total

Respondents

Percent of All Visitor

Days Artificial

Reefs Natural Reefs

No Reefs

Sum of Percentages

Fishinga 490 10% 21% 45% 34% 100% Scuba Diving/Snorkelingb

490 32% 25% 74% 1% 100% a Percent of fishing days on each reef type is reported. b Percent of dives on each reef type is reported. A dive is a boat exit and re-entry. Note: Boating Modes are Charter, Party, Rental, and Private (Own or Friend’s) Boat.

Visitor boaters who came to Palm Beach County to use the reefs spent 10 percent of their visiting days participating in saltwater fishing from either a charter, party, rental or private boat. Of these fishing days, 21 percent of days were spent fishing near artificial reefs, 45 percent of days were spent fishing near natural reefs and 34 percent of days were spent fishing near no reefs. Also, visitor boaters who came to the county to use the reefs spent 32 percent of their visiting days scuba diving or snorkeling. Of these diving/snorkeling days, 25 percent of dives were spent on artificial reefs, 74 percent of dives were spent on natural reefs, and 1 percent of dives were spent on no reefs.



These percentages are based on the visitor responses to the survey. The breakdown between artificial and natural reef use for charter boat and party boat fishing was taken from the responses to the charter boat survey. The breakdown between artificial and natural reef use for all other activities and boat modes were taken from the visitor responses to the survey.

The number of person-days spent in each saltwater boating activity-boat mode was estimated as the total person days reef-using boaters spent visiting the county in year 2000-2001 (from Table 3.2.1-3) times the proportion of person-days that these visitors spent participating in each activity-boat mode. Then the number of person-days spent in each saltwater boating activity-boat mode was allocated to artificial and natural reefs based on either the proportion of days or the proportion of dives spent in that activity-boat mode on or near artificial versus natural reefs. Proportion of days was used for all activities except scuba diving and snorkeling where the proportion of dives was used to provide a more accurate indicator of reef use.

A summary of the total person-days visitors spent participating in reef-related recreation by type of activity and by type of reef in Palm Beach County is provided in Table 3.2.1-5. The total person-days visitors spent participating in each saltwater activity and boat mode by type of reef is provided in Table 3.2.1-6.

Visitors to Palm Beach County spent about 1,260,000 person-days on the reef system from June 2000 to May 2001. About 330,000 of these days were spent on artificial reefs and about 931,000 of these days were spent on natural reefs.

Table 3.2.1-5 (Visitors) Number of Visitor Person-Days Spent Using Artificial and Natural Reefs

By Recreation Activity – Palm Beach County Number of Person-Days

Activity Artificial Reefs Natural Reefs All Reefs Snorkeling 37,000 91,000 127,000 Scuba Diving 238,000 682,000 920,000 Fishing 55,000 158,000 214,000 Glass Bottom Boat Sightseeing 0 0 0 Total 330,000 931,000 1,261,000




Boating Modes and Type of Reef Used - June 2000 to May 2001 Palm Beach County

Number of Person-Days On:

Activity Boat Mode

Number of Person


Natural Reefs No Reefs

Charter/Party 34,171 6,276 27,895 0 Rental 9,528 5,558 3,970 0 Snorkeling Private 83,785 25,105 58,679 0 Charter/Party 795,460 179,124 607,859 8,477 Rental 5,257 1,643 3,614 0 Scuba Diving Private 127,484 57,155 70,329 0 Charter 39,428 5,399 18,221 15,808 Party 73,270 10,032 33,861 29,377 Rental 16,428 0 986 15,443


Private 115,655 32,937 64,004 18,714 Charter/Party 329 0 0 329 Rental 329 0 0 329


Private 657 0 657 0 Charter 18,071 2,474 8,351 7,245 Party 32,200 4,409 14,881 12,910 Rental 0 0 0 0

Fishing Bottom

Private 39,428 0 17,367 22,061 Glass Bottom Boat 0 0 0 0 Back Country Excursion 986 0 0 986 Rental 5,914 0 0 5,914


Private 23,000 0 0 23,000 Rental 2,629 0 0 2,629 Personal Watercraft

(jet skis, wave runners, etc.) Private 42,714 0 0 42,714

Charter/Party 657 0 0 657 Rental 1,314 0 0 1,314 Sailing Private 34,171 0 0 34,171 Charter/Party 4,929 0 0 4,929 Rental 0 0 0 0

Other Boating Activities

Private 33,185 0 0 33,185 Total Person-Days 1,540,978 330,112 930,675 280,190



3.2.2 Economic Contribution – Visitors The Visitor Boater Survey asked respondents how much money they and members of their party spent on their last day that they participated in fishing, scuba diving and snorkeling in the county. The respondent was also asked how many people spent or benefited from those expenditures. The respondent was asked only to provide the amount of money spent in Palm Beach County. From this information, a picture of the average itemized expenditures per person per fishing or diving day and by boating mode was estimated.

The average itemized per person expenditures by those who participated in each activity and boat mode in Palm Beach County are provided in Table 3.2.2-1. Palm Beach County reef-using visitors who went saltwater fishing on their own boat, a friend’s boat or a rental boat spent, on average, $195 per person per day on the day that they went fishing. This amount is comprised of $59 for boat fuel, $28 for tackle, $31 for marina fees, $7 for lodging, $12 for food and beverages at stores and $23 for food and beverages at restaurants and bars, among other items.

The average expenditure of persons who fished on charter boats was $263 per person per day. About $96 was the cost of the charter boat while $29 was spent on lodging, $34 was spent on food and beverages at restaurants and bars, $31 was spent on automobile gasoline, $29 was spent on auto rental, and $29 was spent on shopping.

Persons who fished on party boats spent considerably less per day that other fishers. Average daily expenditures were $116 per person which included $24 for the party boat fee, $18 for lodging, $14 for food and beverages at stores, $30 for food and beverages at restaurants, $11 for auto rental and $11 for shopping.

Palm Beach County reef-using visitors who went scuba diving or snorkeling on their own boat, a friend’s boat or a rental boat spent, on average, $137 per person per day on the day they went diving. This amount is comprised of $38 for boat fuel, $15 for ramp fees, $21 for marina fees, $18 for food and beverages at stores and $19 for food and beverages at restaurants and bars.

Visitors who went diving on charter or party boats spent the same amount per day as those using a private or rental boat. They spent, on average, $138 per person per day. This expenditure was comprised of $56 per day for the dive charter or party boat, $21 per day for lodging and $22 per day for food and beverages in restaurants and bars, among other items.

The lodging expenditure item includes lodging costs for hotels, motels and campgrounds or if the respondent paid by the day or by the week. The $21 per person per day for lodging by divers who use charter or party boats may seem lower than the actual per person rate of a hotel or motel. Bear in mind that only a portion of visitors stay at a hotel or motel. Visitor accommodations also include campgrounds, family or friends, second homes and time shares. Also, many visitors spend only one day in the county and therefore do not incur the cost of a room. The cost of the second home or time share is not included in the lodging cost because this is a monthly or up front cost that can, at best, only be partially due to the existence of the reefs.




Participating in Each Reef-Related Activity and Boating Mode Palm Beach County



Item

Own, Friend's or


Boat Party Boat





Auto Gas $3.85 $30.70 $2.89 $3.36 $8.24 Auto Rental $8.99 $29.29 $10.69 $5.80 $9.12 Equipment Rental $1.73 $0.00 $4.97 $0.50 $2.09 Shopping $7.99 $28.88 $11.20 $9.39 $9.68 Total $195.42 $263.13 $115.50 $137.37 $138.48 Number of Respondents 47 19 78 42 314 Number of Respondents and Party Membersc 152 51 176 137 718 a Expenditures per person per day were estimated from the responses to the Visitor Boater Survey. For each Activity-Mode,

the expenditures for each item were summed over all the respondents who participated in the Activity-Mode. This sum was divided by the total number of respondents and party members who spent or benefited from the expenditures.

b Boat rental is included under Equipment Rental. c The number of persons used to calculate the average expenditure per person for a specific item will be up to two percent

lower than the number of respondents and party members due to the incidents of "don't knows" for a specific item. "Don't know" answers and the associated number of persons in the party were excluded from the calculation of expenditures per person for a specific expenditure item.



The expenditures per person per day were multiplied by the number of person-days by boating mode and reef type to obtain an estimate of the total expenditures associated with reef related activities in Palm Beach County. The itemized total expenditures associated with reef use in 2000-2001 are provided in Table 3.2.2-2. Visitors who used the reefs in Palm Beach County spent $184 million on reef-related expenditures. Of this amount $48 million was associated with artificial reef-related expenditures and $136 million was associated with natural reef-related expenditures.

Table 3.2.2-2 (Visitors) Total Visitor Expenditures In Palm Beach County Associated with Reef Use


Item Artificial Reef Natural Reef Total

Total Number of Person Days 330,112 930,675 1,260,787 Charter / Party Boat Fee $11,539,154 $39,509,116 $51,048,270 Boat Rental 84,080 128,377 212,457 Boat Fuel 5,373,044 10,129,360 15,502,404 Air Refills 476,896 1,318,351 1,795,247 Tackle 929,222 2,341,949 3,271,170 Bait 204,837 516,259 721,096 Ice 215,386 414,936 630,322 Ramp Fees 1,512,441 2,470,091 3,982,532 Marina Fees 2,939,896 5,550,829 8,490,725 Lodging 4,699,409 15,575,573 20,274,983 Camping Fees 165,415 490,450 655,865 Food and Beverages - Stores 3,836,933 9,783,741 13,620,674 Food and Beverages - Restaurants/Bars 7,183,784 20,604,786 27,788,570 Auto Gas 2,238,482 6,974,355 9,212,837 Auto Rental 2,891,652 8,638,760 11,530,413 Equipment Rental 561,319 1,784,856 2,346,175 Shopping 3,287,962 9,415,881 12,703,843 Glass Bottom Boat Ride 0 0 0 Total $48,139,911 $135,647,670 $183,787,582

The reef-related visitor expenditures were then used to estimate the economic contribution of artificial and natural reefs to Palm Beach County. As discussed in the Introduction of the Report, expenditures by visitors generate income and jobs within the industries that supply reef-related goods and services, such as charter / party boat operations, restaurants and hotels. These industries are called direct industries. In addition, these expenditures create multiplier effects



wherein additional income and employment is created as the income earned by the reef-related industries is re-spent within the county. These additional effects of reef-related expenditures are called indirect and induced. Indirect effects are generated as the reef-related industries purchase goods and services from other industries in the county. Induced effects are created when the employees of the direct and indirect industries spend their money in the county.

The direct, indirect and induced increase in sales, total income, employment and indirect business taxes generated by the reef-related expenditures were estimated for Palm Beach County using the IMPLAN Regional Input-Output Model. This model uses detailed data on the economy of the county to estimate economic multipliers and to model the impact of reef-related expenditures on the economy.

The economic contribution of the reefs to Palm Beach County is provided in Table 3.2.2-3. The sales contribution is defined as the value of the additional output produced in the county due to the reef-related expenditures. The total income contribution is defined as the sum of employee compensation, proprietor’s income, interest, rents, and profits generated as a result of the reef-related expenditures. Income is the money that stays in the county’s economy. The employment contribution is the number of full- time and part-time jobs created due to the reef-related expenditures. The indirect business tax contribution is the sum of the additional excise taxes, property taxes, fees, licenses, and sales taxes collected due to the reef-related expenditures.

Table 3.2.2-3 (Visitors) Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Expenditures by Visitors to Palm Beach County

Economic Area is Palm Beach County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars

Reef Type/Economic Contribution Direct Indirect Induced Total Artificial Reefs Sales $48,139,911 $13,615,865 $19,410,419 $81,166,195 Total Income $25,033,935 $7,408,596 $12,211,129 $44,653,660 Employment 849 142 253 1,244 Indirect Business Taxes $4,087,804 $754,643 $1,210,601 $6,053,048 Natural Reefs Sales $135,647,661 $37,909,019 $54,627,400 $228,184,080 Total Income $72,055,317 $20,844,992 $34,328,471 $127,228,780 Employment 2,439 401 712 3,552 Indirect Business Taxes $11,220,086 $2,152,321 $3,417,124 $16,789,531 Natural and Artificial Reefs Sales $183,787,572 $51,524,884 $74,037,819 $309,350,275 Total Income $97,089,252 $28,253,588 $46,539,600 $171,882,440 Employment 3,288 543 965 4,796 Indirect Business Taxes $15,307,890 $2,906,964 $4,627,725 $22,842,579



Reef-related expenditures by visitors to Palm Beach County during the period June 2000 to May 2001 resulted in $309 million in sales to county businesses. These sales generated $172 million in income and 4,800 jobs. About $23 million in indirect business taxes were collected as a result. About 25 percent of these values were the result of artificial reef-related expenditures and 75 percent of these values were the result of natural reef-related expenditures.

3.2.3 Use Value Use value was defined in the introduction to this report. In this study, four types of use values were estimated: (1) the value of maintaining the natural reefs in their existing condition; (2) the value of maintaining the artificial reefs in their existing condition; (3) the value of maintaining both artificial and natural reefs in their existing condition; and (4) the value of adding and maintaining additional artificial reefs. In general, use value is the maximum amount of money that reef users are willing to pay to maintain the reefs in their existing condition and to add more artificial reefs to the system. Use value is presented in terms of per person per day of reef use and in aggregate for all users of the reef system.

The visitor reef-user values associated with maintaining the reefs in their existing conditions for Palm Beach County is provided in Table 3.2.3-1. Use value per person day means the value per person day of artificial, natural or all reef use, as specified in the table. The respondent was asked to state yes, no or don’t know to a specified payment to maintain the artificial reefs, the natural reefs and a combined program that would protect both types of reefs. The scenario provided to the respondent was as follows:

“Local and state government agencies are considering different approaches to maintaining the health and condition of the natural and artificial reefs in southeast Florida. One plan focuses on providing greater protection for natural reefs by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to natural reefs from anchoring, and preventing overuse of the natural reefs. A second plan focuses on protecting the artificial reefs by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to artificial reefs from anchoring and preventing overuse of the artificial reefs.

Both of these plans will involve increased costs to local businesses that will ultimately be passed on to both residents and visitors in southeast Florida. We are doing this survey because local government agencies want to know whether you support one, both or none of these plans and if you would be willing to incur higher costs to pay for these plans. Please keep in mind that whether you support these plans or not would not have any effect on you ability to participate in any boating activity or other recreation in southeast Florida.”

Then the respondent was asked a yes or no question regarding the natural reef plan, the artificial reef plan and both plans. For example, the question regarding both plans read: “Suppose that both of the above plans to maintain the natural and artificial reefs in southeast Florida were put together in a combined program. Consider once again your total trip cost for your last trip to use the reefs in southeast Florida including travel expenses, lodging, and all boating expenses. If



your total costs for this trip would have been $_____ higher, would you be willing to pay this amount to maintain the artificial and natural reefs?”

The amounts (bid values) of $20, $100, $200, $1,000, and $2,000 were rotated from respondent to respondent. For the individual programs (just natural or artificial reef protection), the amounts were one-half of the above amounts: $10, $50, $100, $500 and $1,000.

Values for all reefs were taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 38 of Visitor Boater Survey4: “Suppose that both of the above plans to maintain the natural and artificial reefs in southeast Florida were put together into a combined program...If your total costs for this trip would have been $___ higher, would you have been willing to pay this amount to maintain the artificial and natural reefs.” Values for artificial reefs were taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 36 pertaining only to a program to maintain the existing artificial reefs in their current condition. Values for natural reefs were taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 34 pertaining only to a program to maintain the natural reefs in their current condition.

Chapter 2.2.2 provides a general description of the procedures used to ana lyze the use value responses and the procedures used to estimate the user values presented here. For a more technical discussion, please see this report’s Technical Appendix which is a separate document. This report describes the methods used to derive the values presented here and provides alternative estimates using different estimation methods. Here we present the estimates of total annual use value, use value per person-day, and the asset value of the reefs derived using the logit model.

The results are consistent with the idea that natural reefs are preferred to artificial reefs. For Palm Beach County visitors, the average per person-day value of the natural reefs was $27.85 versus $17.89 for artificial reefs. Total use is also higher for natural versus artificial reefs. Palm Beach County visitors’ natural reef use was almost 931 thousand person-days versus 330 thousand person-days for artificial reefs. This translated into an estimate of total annual use value of over $25.9 million for natural reefs and $5.9 million for artificial reefs. Capitalizing the annual use values, using a three percent discount rate, yields asset values of about $864 million for the natural reefs and $197 million for the artificial reefs.

Annual use value represents the annual flow of total use value (i.e., the recreational benefits) to the reef-using public. From a public policy point of view, government spends money on the protection and management of the valuable resources of the natural and artificial reefs. This includes investments for such things as deployment of new artificial reefs and enhancements of natural reefs. In addition, government entities incur variable costs each year to support marine patrol, biologists, planners and even contracts with economists to help carry out the mission of

4 For a complete description of the contingent valuation questions, please refer to the Visitor Boater Survey

and the Blue Card (which is white in this report but labeled “Blue Card” in Appendix B.



protecting the existing reef system. These costs can be compared with the annual flow of total use value of the reef to determine if this is indeed a wise investment.

The question combining the natural and artificial reef programs yielded estimates of use value lower than that derived by adding-up the values of the natural and artificial reef programs separately. This result is consistent with past research. Some respondents are not willing to pay the sum of the values of the individual programs to finance the combined programs. This is largely due to the income constraints as higher bid values are provided to the respondents under the combined programs. The value of the combined programs would provide a conservative or lower bound estimate of the total natural and artificial reef values.

The capitalized value of the reef user values is the present value of the annual values calculated at three percent discount rate. It represents the “stock” value analogous to land market values. The capitalized visitor reef user value associated with Palm Beach County reefs, both artificial and natural, is $701 million. Bear in mind that this value only includes the value that visitor reef users place on the reefs and does not inc lude the values that resident reef users and non-reef-users place on the reefs or the economic contribution of the reefs. The estimation of the value of reefs to non-reef users was not part of this study.

Table 3.2.3-1 (Visitors) Annual Value of Reefs To Reef Users and Capitalized Value

Data Represents June 2000 to May 2001 Visitor Reef-Users in Palm Beach County

Item

All Reefs – Artificial and

Natural Artificial Reefs

Natural Reefs

Number of Person-Days of Reef Use 1,260,787 330,112 930,675 Use Value Per Person-Day ($2000) $16.68 $17.89 $27.85 Annual Use Value - ($2000) $21,032,312 $5,906,311 $25,919,931 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate ($2000) $701,077,067 $196,877,033 $863,997,700

Reef users’ willingness to pay to invest in and maintain “new” artificial reefs is provided in Table 3.2.3-2. The use value per person-day is the value per day or a portion of a day of artificial reef use. Reef users are willing to pay $4 million annually for this program in Palm Beach County. Scuba divers have the highest value for new artificial reefs of all user types.



Table 3.2.3-2 (Visitors) Estimated Use Value of Investing in and Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs in the County

Visitor Reef-Users in Palm Beach County Item Value

Number of Person-Days of Artificial Reef Use 330,112 Use Value Per Person-Day for "New" Artificial Reefs ($2000) $12.01 Annual Use Values for "New" Artificial Reefs $3,964,467 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate ($2000) $132,148,900 Note: Use value per person-day is the use value for a whole day or a portion of a day of artificial reef use.

The value of reefs by reef type and activity type for Palm Beach County is provided in Table 3.2.3-3.

Table 3.2.3-3 (Visitors) Value of Reefs to Visitors to Palm Beach County, by Reef Type and Activity, 2000-2001

Reef Type/Activity Person-Days Annual User

Value ($) User Value Per Person-Day ($)

Natural Reefs 930,675 $25,919,931 $27.85 Snorkeling 90,544 $1,343,878 $14.84 Scuba Diving 681,802 $22,378,144 $32.82 Fishing 158,329 $2,197,909 $13.88 Artificial Reefs 330,112 $5,906,311 $17.89 Snorkeling 36,940 $362,444 $9.81 Scuba Diving 237,921 $4,812,227 $20.23 Fishing 55,252 $731,639 $13.24 Natural & Artificial Reefs 1,260,787 $21,032,312 $16.68 Snorkeling 127,484 $963,029 $7.55 Scuba Diving 919,723 $18,396,328 $20.00 Fishing 213,580 $1,672,955 $7.83 New Artificial Reefs 330,112 $3,964,467 $12.01 Snorkeling 36,940 $155,683 $4.21 Scuba Diving 237,921 $3,494,556 $14.69 Fishing 55,252 $314,228 $5.69

3.2.4 Demographic Information The Visitor Boater Survey asked the respondent questions regarding his/her socioeconomic characteristics so that a picture of the typical reef user could be developed. The results for Palm Beach County are summarized in Table 3.2.4-1.



Table 3.2.4-1 (Visitors) Demographic Characteristics of Visitor Reef-Users in Palm Beach County, 2000 Characteristic Value Median Age of Respondent – Years 41 Sex of Respondent Male 79% Female 21% Race of Respondent White 94% Black 2% Other 4% Percent Hispanic / Latino 5% Median Household Income $87,500 Average Years Boating in Southeast Florida 9.2 Average Length of Own Boat Used in Saltwater Boating in Feet 25 Percent of Respondents Who Belong to Fishing and/or Diving Clubs 24%

3.3 Total – Residents and Visitors This section summarizes the user activities, economic contribution and use values associated with the artificial and natural reefs for both residents and visitors of Palm Beach County. Demographic information of both resident and visitor reef users is also provided.

3.3.1 User Activity The numbers of person-days spent using the reefs in Palm Beach County by reef type and population (residents and visitors) are summarized in Table 3.3.1-1. Visitors and residents spent 4.2 million person-days using artificial and natural reefs in Palm Beach County during the 12 month period from June 2000 to May 2001. Residents spent 3.0 million person-days and visitors spent 1.2 million person-days. Reef users spent 1.4 million person-days using artificial reefs and 2.8 million person-days using natural reefs. A summary of reef use by type of activity is provided in Table 3.3.1-2.



Table 3.3.1-1 Number of Person-Days Spent on Artificial and

Natural Reefs in Palm Beach County Residents and Visitors

In Millions Population Artificial Reefs Natural Reefs All Reefs Residents 1.08 1.90 2.98 Visitors 0.33 0.93 1.26 Total 1.41 2.83 4.24

Table 3.3.1-2 Number of Person-Days Spent Using Reefs in Palm Beach County

By Recreational Activity Residents and Visitors

In Millions Activity Residents Visitors Total Snorkeling 0.62 0.13 0.75 Scuba Diving 0.81 0.92 1.73 Fishing 1.55 0.21 1.76 Total 2.98 1.26 4.24

Diving is a bit more prevalent than fishing in Palm Beach County. Fishing comprises 1.8 million person-days while scuba diving and snorkeling comprise 1.7 million person-days and about 750,000 person-days, respectively. Resident reef-related recreation comprises 70 percent of total reef-related recreation by residents and visitors in Palm Beach County. Residents spend significantly more days fishing and more days snorkeling than do visitors.

3.3.2 Economic Contribution The total economic contribution of the reefs to Palm Beach County includes the contribution of reef expenditures to sales, income and employment. Expenditures by visitors generate income and jobs within the industries that supply reef-related goods and services, such as charter / party boat operations, restaurants and hotels. These industries are called direct industries. In addition, these visitor expenditures create multiplier effects wherein additional income and employment is created as the income earned by the reef-related industries is re-spent within the county. These additional effects of reef-related expenditures are called indirect and induced. Indirect effects are generated as the reef-related industries purchase goods and services from other industries in the county. Induced effects are created when the employees of the direct and indirect industries spend their money in the county.





The economic contributions of the artificial, natural and all reefs to Palm Beach County are provided in Tables 3.3.2-1 through 3.3.2-3. The sales contribution is defined as the value of the additional output produced in the county due to the reef-related expenditures. The total income contribution is defined as the sum of employee compensation, proprietor’s income, interest, rents, and profits generated as a result of the reef-related expenditures. The employment contribution is the number of full- time and part-time jobs created due to the reef-related expenditures.

All reef-related expenditures in Palm Beach County generated $505 million in sales during the 12-month period from June 2000 to May 2001. These sales resulted in $194 million in income to Palm Beach County residents and provided 6,300 jobs in Palm Beach County. Artificial reef-related expenditures accounted for 30 percent of the economic contribution of all reefs and natural reef-related expenditures accounted for 70 percent of the economic contribution.

Table 3.3.2-1 Economic Contribution of Artificial Reef-Related Expenditures

to Palm Beach County June 2000 to May 2001 – In Millions of 2000 dollars

Contribution to: Round of Spending Sales Incomeb Employmentc Directa

Resident $69.30 $8.00 536 Visitor $48.14 $25.00 849 Total $117.44 $33.00 1,385

Indirect $13.62 $7.40 142 Induced $19.41 $12.20 253 Total $150.47 $52.60 1,780 a The direct contribution is the actual expenditures made in the county. b Total income includes employee compensation, proprietor's income, interest, rents and profits c Employment includes the number of full-time and part-time jobs.



Table 3.3.2-2 Economic Contribution of Natural Reef-Related Expenditures



Resident $126.20 $14.40 968 Visitor $135.65 $72.00 2,439 Total $261.85 $86.40 3,407


Table 3.3.2-3 Economic Contribution of All Reef-Related Expenditures



Resident $195.50 $22.50 1,503 Visitor $183.79 $97.00 3,288 Total $379.29 $119.50 4,791


3.3.3 Use Value In this study, four types of use values were estimated: (1) the value to natural reef users of maintaining the natural reefs in their existing condition; (2) the value to artificial reef users of maintaining the artificial reefs in their existing condition; (3) the value to all reef users of maintaining both the artificial and natural reefs in their existing condition; and (4) the value of adding and maintaining additional artificial reefs. In general, use value is the maximum amount



of money that reef users are willing to pay to maintain the reefs in their existing condition and to add more artificial reefs to the system. Use value is presented in terms of per person per day of reef use and in aggregate for all users of the reef system.

The annual value Palm Beach County visitors and residents place on protecting the reefs in their existing condition and the associated capitalized value is presented in Table 3.3.3-1. The annual value visitor and resident reef-users place on investing in and maintaining “new” artificial reefs is presented in Table 3.3.3-2. These values were explained in Sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.3.

Table 3.3.3-1 Annual Use Value Associated with Protecting Reefs in their Existing Condition and

Capitalized Value associated With Reef Use Data Represents June 2000 to May 2001

Palm Beach County, Florida Item Residents Visitors Total

All Reefs - Artificial and Natural

Number of Person-Days of Reef Use (millions)

2.98 1.26 4.24

Use Value Per Person-Day $3.38 $16.68 $7.34

Annual Use Value - (million dollars) $10.7 $21.03 $31.10

Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate (million dollars)

$335.8 $701.08 $1,036.88

Artificial Reefs

Number of Person-Days of Artificial Reef Use (millions)

1.08 0.33 1.41

Use Value Per Person-Day $2.96 $17.89 $6.47

Annual Use Value - (million dollars) $3.18 $5.91 $9.09


$106.10 $196.88 $302.98

Natural Reefs

Number of Person-Days of Reef Use (millions)

1.90 0.93 2.83

Use Value Per Person-Day $8.50 $27.85 $14.86 Annual Use Value - (million dollars) $16.18 $25.92 $42.10


$539.30 $864.00 $1,403.30



Table 3.3.3-2 Estimated Value to Reef Users From Investing in and

Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs Palm Beach County, Florida

Item Residents Visitors Total Number of Person-Days of Artificial Reef Use (millions) 1.08 0.33 1.41

Use Value Per Person-Day for "New" Artificial Reefs $0.72 $12.01 $3.37

Annual Use Values for "New" Artificial Reefs (million dollars) $0.78 $3.96 $4.74

Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate (million dollars) $25.90 $132.10 $158.00

3.3.4 Demographic Information This section summarizes and compares the demographic characteristics of visitor and resident reef users. These characteristics were obtained from the resident boater survey and the visitor boater survey. They are summarized in Table 3.3.4-1. A comparison of the demographics indicate that resident and visitors are very similar in terms of age, race, income, and membership in fishing and/or diving clubs.



Table 3.3.4-1 Demographic Characteristics of Resident and Visitor Reef-Users in

Palm Beach County, 2000 Resident Reef-Users Visitor Reef-Users

Median Age of Respondent 48 41 Sex Of Respondent Percent Percent

Male 91% 79%

Female 9% 21% % of Resident Reef-Users % of Visitor Reef-Users

White Black Other White Black Other

Race Of Respondent 97% 0% 3% 94% 2% 4% % of Resident Reef-Users % of Visitor Reef-Users

Percent Hispanic/Latino 4% 5% Resident Reef-Users Visitor Reef-Users

Median Household Income $71,695 $87,500 Residents Visitors

Average Years Boating in South Florida

21 9.2

Residents Visitors


25 25

Residents Visitors

% of Respondents Who Belong to Fishing and/or Diving Clubs

20% 24%


Final Report

Chapter 4: Socioeconomic Values of Reefs in Broward County

This chapter describes the Socioeconomic Value of Artificial and Natural Reefs in Broward County to residents and visitors. For both groups this chapter discusses the following topics.

§ Volume of user activity on both artificial and natural reefs off Broward County;


§ Resident and visitor “use value” associated with recreating on artificial and natural reefs in Broward County; and,

§ Demographic and boater profile of reef users in Broward County.


4.1 Residents This section presents the estimated socioeconomic values associated with resident boater use of the reefs off the coast of Broward County. Resident boaters are those individuals who live within Broward County and who use a boat that is owned by a resident of the county to visit the reef system. Resident boats used to visit the reef system are defined as those greater than 16 feet in length and registered with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

4.1.1 User Activity This chapter first considers the volume of resident user activity associated with the artificial and natural reefs off Broward County. User activity is expressed in terms of the number of boating days or “party-days” since each boat usually carries one or more individuals. Also, user activity will be analyzed in terms of the kinds of recreational activities (e.g., snorkeling) that parties take part in when they visit the reef system.

To measure party-days for any recreational resource, it is important to define what universe the research is intended to measure. In this study, we wish to measure the number of party-days spent on artificial and natural reefs in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Broward County. Most residents use their own boats to visit and use the reefs. The use of party boats and charter rentals by residents was not estimated.

In 1999-2000, there were 61,124 registered pleasure boats in Broward County according to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (2001). These pleasure craft were divided into the following size classes:

4.0 Socioeconomic Value of Reefs in Broward County


Final Report


Number of Boats

Percentage of Total


Less than 12 feet 12,579 20.6% 20.6% 12 feet to 15'11'' 8,917 14.5% 35.1% 16 feet to 25'11" 27,917 45.6% 80.7% 26 feet to 39'11" 9,413 15.4% 96.1% 40 feet to 64'11" 2,109 3.5% 99.6% 65 feet to 109'11" 173 0.3% 99.9% Greater than 110 feet 16 0.1% 100.00% Total 61,124 100.00%

The largest boat size category of pleasure craft in Broward County is between 16 and nearly 26 feet in length (46 percent).

Three adjustments were made to reach the target population of resident boaters in Broward County who may visit the reef system. First, sampling was restricted to pleasure craft at least 16 feet in length. This was in response to expert opinion that very few pleasure craft under 16 feet could reach the reef system. Thus, the mail survey was targeted at pleasure craft at least 16 feet long so that non reef users could be avoided and to increase the sample size on that segment of the boating population with the highest propensity to use the reef system. This reduced the target boat population in Broward County to 39,628 pleasure craft.

In addition, not everyone with a relatively large boat would use an artificial and/or natural reef in the last twelve months. In fact, the results of the survey indicated that 61 percent of these larger vessels used the Broward County reef system in the last 12 months or 23,975 pleasure craft. Finally, we found that about one-half of one percent of registered boats in our target population had a residence somewhere outside Broward County. Thus, the target population was again reduced to 23,855 pleasure craft to reflect only resident boat owners who used the reefs in the past twelve months.

On average, respondents indicated that over a 12-month period (1999-2000) they used the reef system on 39 separate days while engaging in three main recreational activities including fishing, snorkeling and scuba diving. Remember, these boaters have the highest propensity to use the reef system compared to smaller vessels. Based upon this information, it was estimated that over this 12-month period, 930,319 “party- days” were spent on the reef system (39 party days times 23,855 pleasure craft) by Broward County residents.

In conducting the mail survey, we asked reef-users from Broward County to distribute their 39 party-days in two ways. First, they were asked to distribute their reef usage among three recreational activities as follows: (1) Fishing, (2) Snorkeling and (3) Scuba Diving. Second, respondents were asked to distribute each of these recreational activities between artificial and



Final Report

natural reefs. Table 4.1.1-1 shows the distribution of party-days by resident boaters in Broward County.

Broward county residents spent an estimated 55 percent of their party-days fishing on the artificial and natural reefs followed by scuba diving (26 percent) and snorkeling (19 percent). For all the recreational activities on reefs, 66 percent of the party-days were spent visiting natural reefs. The strongest intensity of natural reef use was for snorkeling where 78 percent of the respondents used the natural reef for this activity.

In the right-hand side of Table 4.1.1-1, user activity measured in ”person-days” is provided. A “person-day” is equivalent to an individual traveling to use the reef system for part or all of one day. The number of person-days can be calculated by multiplying the average size of the party (i.e. number of individuals per party) by the number of party-days. However, one important adjustment to average party size was necessary to calculate residential person-days. Here the average party size was reduced by subtracting out those individuals that are considered to be visitors (i.e. non-residents of Broward County). About 20 percent of the average boating party is a nonresident. Thus, Table 4.1.1-1 utilizes the average resident party size to calculate resident person-days. The average resident party size does not vary appreciably among the various reef-related recreational activities and averages about 3.9 residents per party. Because of this, the distribution of person-days among the activities is similar to the distribution of party-days among the activities. For example, saltwater fishing on reefs garnered 2.2 million person-days or 58 percent of all person-days during the 12-month period (December 1999 to November 2000). The total number of person-days for residents using the reef system off Broward County over a 12-month period was estimated at 3.7 million.

While party-days gives a “boater dimension” to user activity in and around the reef system, person-days yield a “people dimension” to use of the reef system. The former is especially useful in judging the adequacy of the boating infrastructure such as marinas and boat ramps while the latter is used in calculating recreational use value which will be discussed below.



Final Report

Table 4.1.1-1 (Residents) Estimated Resident User Activity As Measured by Party-Days and Person-Days on

Artificial and Natural Reefs off Broward County, Florida, 2000 Number and Distribution of Party-Days

by Activity and Reef Type Number and Distribution of Person-Days

by Activity and Reef Type

Activity/ Type of Reef


Percentage of Party-Days Per Activity

by Reef Type

Percentage of Total

Party-Days Per Activity


Number of Resident Person-Days1

by Activity by Reef Type

Percentage of Person-Days Per Activity

by Reef Type

Percentage of Total

Person-Days Per Activity

Fishing 55% 4.21 58% Artificial 204,670 40% 861,661 40% Natural 307,005 60% 1,292,491 60%

Subtotal 511,675 100% 2,154,152 100% Snorkeling 19% 4.14 20%

Artificial 38,887 22% 160,992 22% Natural 137,873 78% 570,794 78%

Subtotal 176,760 100% 731,786 100% Scuba Diving 26% 3.44 22%

Artificial 74,985 31% 257,948 31% Natural 166,899 69% 574,133 69%

Subtotal 241,884 100% 832,081 100% All Activities 4.00

Artificial 318,542 34% 1,280,601 34% Natural 611,777 66% 2,437,418 66%

Total 930,319 100% 100% 3,718,019 100% 100% 1 Resident person-days is calculated by multiplying the number of party-days by the average resident party size.



4.1.2 Economic Contribution To fully understand the economic contribution of reefs to Broward County it is first important to recognize what factors influence the demand for boating in this area. This will help in understanding the nature of boating in the county and how it relates to the use of artificial and natural reefs. In a study by Bell and Leeworthy (1986), the authors found that the demand for boats by individuals was related to boat prices, population and per capita income. Therefore, we would expect a higher number of registered pleasure craft in counties that are large as measured by population and are relatively affluent as measured by real per capita income.

The number of registered boats in any county is critical in assessing the adequacy of the boating infrastructure such as boat ramps and, of course, artificial and natural reefs. This topic has recently been addressed in the 2000 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreational Plan (2001) issued by the Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. However, this report did not include an assessment of the reef system in various regions of Florida.

This section considers the demand for boating in Broward County, not the adequacy of the boating infrastructure. This will give the reader an overview of boating characteristics in Broward County and valuable information necessary to assess the adequacy of the boating infrastructure. The overview includes a discussion of the county’s population, per capita income, industrial structure and its infrastructure related to saltwater boating. This will also give a background by which to assess the results of this study.

Broward County is on the southeast coast of Florida bordering the Atlantic Ocean with Fort Lauderdale as its largest city. In 1999, the county was Florida’s second largest with 1.49 million residents. Over the last ten years, population in this county grew by 18.7 percent making it the 48th fastest growing county in Florida (out of 67 counties). Broward County has 1,233 persons per square mile as compared to 284 for Florida as a whole, making it the second most densely populated county in the State. This county’s population has a median age of 39.8 years which is comparable to the general population of Florida which has an median age of 39 years.

The University of Florida, Bureau of Economic Research projects the county’s population to reach 1.8 million by 2015 or a 26 percent increase. In-migration to Broward County, as in the past, will account for over 84 percent of this growth. Thus, this county’s population growth will depend heavily on individuals moving into the county. The size of Broward County’s population coupled with its projected future growth makes this county a potentially large market for resident recreational boating along its coasts.

In 1998, Broward County had a per capita income of $28,546 placing it eleventh among the 67 counties in the State of Florida. However, this per capita income was only 6.3 percent above the state average of $26,845. The higher per capita income in Broward County is largely due to higher earnings per job in the local economy combined with a higher work participation rate. 1

1 The workforce participation rate in Broward County is 85.1 percent compared to 78.5 percent for the

general population of Florida.



In 1998, there were 675,558 persons employed in Broward County earning $19.92 billion in wages and salaries. Over the last ten years, employment grew by 17.7 percent which corresponds to the rate of growth in population as discussed above. Measured by employment earnings, the largest industries in 1998 were services (33.4 percent); state and local government (12.8 percent); and retail trade (12.6 percent). Of particular note, this county provides a lot of tourist-related services such as lodging, amusement and recreation. Nearly 20,000 workers were involved in these industries in Broward County in 1998. The attraction of tourists provides part of the economic base for this county.

In 2000, there were 61,124 recreational boats (FDHSMV, 2001) registered in Broward County or 1 boat for every 25 people. For the State of Florida, there is 1 registered pleasure boat for every 14 residents. The infrastructure supporting various coastal or saltwater forms of boating recreation in Broward County include the following (FDEP, 2000)(Pybas, 1997):



3. Other Facilities: 2,804 boat dry storage;


Despite the relatively large population and high per capita income in Broward County, the demand for recreational boating is less than the demand for boating throughout Florida as measured by the ratio of registered boats per person. These demand factors combined with the saltwater coastal nature of this county would lead one to predict a much higher ratio of registered boats per person. The explanation for this finding is usually found on the supply side where there is crowding or congestion at the access points (e.g., boat ramps) to the water and access points to the recreational resources such as artificial and natural reefs once off shore. This increases the cost of recreational boating and reduces the demand for pleasure boats. This is just a “working hypothesis” of potential supply side problems. Other factors may also be affecting recreational boat ownership in Broward County.

Using a mail survey, 3,000 registered boaters in Broward County were contacted at random using the survey instrument provided in Appendix A. Boat owner addresses were obtained from a registered boater database compiled by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. A total of 616 registered boaters responded to the mail survey and 53.6 percent indicated that they used their pleasure crafts to visit the reefs offshore of Broward County dur ing the past twelve months (December 1999 to November 2000). The results of the survey were used to estimate a total of 1.28 million person-days spent by residents of Broward County on artificial reefs in a 12-month period. This amounts to an average of 17,305 person-days per year for each reef or 47 persons per day. This, of course, does not include visitors from outside Broward County, which are discussed in the next section of this chapter.



To estimate the economic contribution of resident spending associated with reef use in the Broward County economy, we asked the respondents to estimate their party’s spending during their last reef-related boating activity. It was assumed that each boating trip would involve one day since the residents are in their county of residence. Residential expenditures per party were distributed by type of recreation activity and the results are presented in Table 4.1.2-1.

Table 4.1.2-1 (Residents) Average Resident Spending per Party by Broward County Reef-Users

Activity

Estimated Spending per Party per Day

Percentage of Residents per Party

Estimated Spending per Resident Party

per Day (1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) * (3)


Scuba divers spent the most amount of money and fishers spent the least amount of money per day. Expenditures for marina fees, equipment rentals and restaurants made the former activity a more expensive recreational activity than the latter. Detailed expenditures on particular items will be discussed below while additional information and analysis is provided in the Technical Appendix to this report.

Note that an adjustment was made to the size of the boating party in order to calculate estimated expenditures by residents as summarized above. About 15 to 21 percent of the typical party includes individuals who were apparently guests of the Broward County residents. We made the simplifying assumption that these visitors would pay their fair share of the trip cost. For instance, visitors would pay a proportion of the trip costs such as boat fuel, restaurants and bait. We believe that residents probably pay for a larger share of total party costs than used in this study. However, we shall be conservative and assume an equal sharing of cost between residents and their visitors.

To derive the economic impact of a particular reef-related recreational activity, one must briefly return to Table 4.1.1-1. This table shows the number of residential party-days and person-days associated with reef use over a 12-month period off the coast of Broward County. For example, recreational fishers spent 511,675 resident party-days on all reefs off Broward County. According to our resident spending per party discussed above, fishers spent $261.02 per trip. Thus, annual expenditures for reef-related fishing was estimated at $133.6 million dollars ($261.02 times 511,675).

Based upon the distribution of party-days per reef type, about $53.4 million was spent while using an artificial reef while the balance or $80.2 million was spent in conjunction with the use of natural reefs by recreational fishers. There did not appear to be much difference between



party spending by fishers who used either type of reef. This held for the othe r two recreational activities as well.

Table 4.1.2-2 presents the economic contribution of all reef-related recreational pursuits off the Broward County coast. Residents spent an estimated $269.8 million during the 12-month period December 1999 through November 2000. About two-thirds of this amount was spent while using natural reefs ($178.9 million) while the balance ($90.9 million) was spent in conjunction with the use of artificial reefs. Nearly 50 percent of total spending or $133.5 million was spent on reef-related recreational fishing while $83.9 million (31 percent) was spent on reef-related scuba diving and $52.4 million (19 percent) was spent on reef-related snorkeling.

Table 4.1.2-2 (Residents) Reef-Related Expenditures, Wages and Employment Generated by

Resident Boating Activities in Broward County, Florida, 2000

Type of Activity/ Type of Reef

Expenditures (Million $)

Wages (Million $)


Part-Time Jobs) Artificial Reef Fishing $53.4 $6.8 438 Snorkeling $11.5 $1.9 132 Scuba Diving $26.0 $3.8 242 Subtotal $90.9 $12.5 812 Percentage Attributed to Artificial Reefs 34% 33% 33% Natural Reef Fishing $80.1 $10.1 656 Snorkeling $40.9 $6.7 467 Scuba Diving $57.9 $8.4 539 Subtotal $178.9 $25.2 1,662 Percentage Attributable to Natural Reefs 66% 67% 67% Total All Reefs Fishing $133.5 $16.9 1,094 Snorkeling $52.4 $8.6 599 Scuba Diving $83.9 $12.2 781 Total All Reefs/All Activities $269.8 $37.7 2,474

It is important that we clarify the economic contribution of resident boaters from Broward County. The engine of economic growth for any region such as Broward County is found in its export industries such as tourism in Broward County. As export income flows through the region, it creates local income (e.g., money paid for haircuts by residents) and a demand for imports (e.g., TV sets since Broward County does not have such a manufacturer). The local income is spent on everything from marina services to dining out at a local restaurant to grocery purchases to rent or mortgage payments. Thus, residents use local income to pay for goods and



services in conjunction with reef use. This spending represents the choice between recreating locally and leaving the area to recreate elsewhere.

The reef system keeps the “locals” in the county and enlarges the economy by about $269.8 million in local spending. In contrast to visitors entering the county, there is no multiplier effect. Generally, the more money kept in the local economy, the larger is the regional multiplier because there is less “leakage” through the purchase of imports, including residents leaving the area for recreational pursuits in places such as Key West or Orlando. Just how much the regional multiplier is enlarged from resident use of the reef system is beyond the scope of this study. However, it is safe to say that protection and maintenance of the reef system has the potential to keep more business in Broward County. For ardent reef-users, the absence of reefs off the coast of Broward County would certainly divert more of these residents to reef systems in counties north and south of this area to the economic detriment of Broward county.

Reef-related local spending discussed above is, in itself, only a vehicle to create jobs and wages in the local community. To evaluate which industries benefit from residential reef use, reef-users were asked to break their expenditures into 12 categories for items such as boat fuel, ice, tackle and marina fees. For each of the twelve categories, resident expenditures were matched to total county expenditures published in the 1997 U.S. Census of Business (1997). For example, spending on boat fuel was matched up with total expenditures at gasoline stations in Broward County. It was found that each gasoline station employee “sells” $331,382 per year out of which the employee is paid about $15,244 or about 4.6 percent of sales. The annual salary may seem low, but this figure is for full and part time employees with a relatively low skill level. Thus, every $331,382 in gasoline purchased for reef-related recreation by local users, generates one job paying about $15,244 per year.

This rather simple procedure was followed for each of the 12 expenditure categories that vary greatly in labor intensity. The higher the sales-to-employment ratio, the less labor intensive the activity. For example, restaurants are relatively labor intensive (i.e., cooks and servers) while gasoline stations discussed are highly automated and consequently need relatively few employees per $100,000 dollars in sales.

Table 4.1.2-2 shows the estimated wages and employment generated by resident spending on reef-related recreational activities in Broward County. The $269.8 million in annual spending generated about $37.7 million dollars in annual wages supporting 2,474 jobs.

It is also important to look at what industries benefit from reef-related resident spending. Table 4.1.2-3 presents the 12 spending categories of resident boaters. We would expect that expenditures would be concentrated on running and storing a boat and the results support this assumption. Expenditures on boat oil and gas constituted 25 percent of all spending followed by spending on marina slip rentals and dockage fees (18 percent) and food and beverages from restaurants (13 percent) and stores (8 percent). In terms of dollar figures, resident reef-users spent over $47 million annually on the marina industry. According to the U.S. Census of Business (1997), the marina industry in Broward County grossed about $99 million in sales.



Thus, resident reef-users may account for about one-half of these sales. Marina industry sales would also come from resident non-reef users and visitors keeping their boats in local marinas. The role of visitors will be discussed in the next section.

In terms of employment, reef-related resident spending created proportionately more employment in marinas and restaurants than the other industries since, as discussed above, these industries are relatively labor intensive. Although gasoline stations ranked number one as a component of spending, this industry is capital- intensive and provides relatively lower employment per $100,000 in sales. Spending on boat oil and gas accounted for one-fourth of all spending, but only one in ten jobs. As might be expected, wages follow employment. That is, the higher the percentage of spending on labor intensive industries, the higher the total wages generated. However, some industries employ highly skilled persons such as marinas where the wages paid are proportionately higher than employment as indicated in Table 4.1.2-3.



Final Report

Table 4.1.2-3 (Residents) Detailed Expenditure Pattern Supporting Employment and Wages by

All Resident Reef-Users in Broward County, Florida, 2000


(Million $)

Percentage of Total

Expenditures


Part-Time Jobs)

Percentage of Total

Employment Wages

(Million $)


1. Boat gas and oil $67.28 25% 203 8% $3.06 8%

2. Marina slip rentals and dockage fees $47.17 17% 477 19% $11.49 31%

3. Food and beverages from restaurants/bars

$35.99 13% 951 39% $9.39 25%

4. Food and beverages from stores $22.47 8% 172 7% $2.41 6%

5. Tackle $24.68 9% 165 7% $3.04 8%

6. Bait $12.35 5% 83 3% $1.52 4%

7. Gas for auto $10.47 4% 32 1% $0.48 1%

8. Ice $6.11 2% 19 1% $0.28 1%

9. Equipment rentals $6.78 3% 69 3% $1.70 4%

10. Boat ramp and parking fees $4.61 2% 51 2% $1.12 3%

11. Sundries (e.g. Sun screen, sea sickness pills, etc.)

$6.56 3% 84 3% $0.64 2%

12. All other $25.31 9% 170 7% $2.46 7%

Total $269.78 100% 2,476 100% $37.59 100%



Final Report

4.1.3 Use Value Natural and artificial reefs contribute to the recreational experience of residents (i.e. fishing, snorkeling and scuba diving). Traveling to and enjoying a reef system involves economic costs including the cost of boat fuel, bait and tackle. This was discussed above. However, the market does not measure the total economic value of reef systems. There is no organized market in which to buy and sell the use of reefs because these resources are not owned by one individual but by society as a whole. Thus, the absence of private property rights creates a challenge in valuing natural and artificial reefs.

Yet, the general public does pay for the deployment of artificial reefs and the protection of natural reefs. So, there must be some unmeasured value of providing the reef system to the general public. Because reef-users are attracted to the reefs for recreation, we call this unmeasured value “use value”. For example, one could engage in scuba diving without the benefit of a natural or artificial reef. The addition of a reef presumably adds some “value” to the scuba diver’s recreational experience. This section examines the incremental use value of having a reef system off the coast of Broward County.

The contingent valuation (CV) method asks users about their willingness to pay for a reef system contingent on specified conditions (e.g., use of funds for various reef related improvements). This CV method has been employed in numerous studies of use value from deep-sea fishing to deer hunting. 2 The reef-using respondents were asked a series of CV questions dealing with their willingness to pay for the reef program. The respondents were asked to consider the total cost for their last boating trip to the reefs including travel expenses, lodging, and all boating expenses. Then, the respondent was asked

“If your total cost per trip would have been $______ higher, would you have been willing to pay this amount to maintain the (kind of reef – artificial or natural or both) in their existing condition.”

Payment amounts or cost increases ($10, $50, $100, $200 and $500) were inserted in the blank space and the amounts were rotated from respondent to respondent. Thus, some respondents received questions asking about a $10 increase while others were asked about a $50, $100 or even $500 increase in trip cost. The purpose of these questions was to establish the user value per day for artificial and natural reefs.

The above willingness to pay question was asked of each respondent in three forms: (l) natural reefs separately; (2) artificial reefs separately and (3) a combination of natural and artificial reefs. Because the primary spending unit is the “party”, the willingness to pay response to an increase in trip cost was considered to be the willingness to pay of the entire party.

To estimate values per party per trip (a day and a trip are equal for residents), the data were pooled for all counties. A logit model was used to estimate the values per-party-per-trip. The




Final Report

logit model tested for differences by county, activity, household income, age of respondent, years of boating experience in South Florida, race/ethnicity, sex, length of boat owned, and whether the respondent is a member of a fishing or diving club.

Separate models were estimated for each of the four reef programs (e.g., natural reefs, existing artificial reefs, natural & artificial reefs combined and new artificial reefs). For the natural reef, existing artificial reefs and the combined programs, the only significant differences found were for those with income greater than $100,000. This group had a higher willingness to pay than other reef users. There were no other differences found. The logit model did not produce different per party per trip values by county, and because party sizes were not significantly different by county the estimated values per person-trip were also the same across counties for each of the reef valuation programs. The estimated per party per trip (day) values were $32.55 for the natural reefs, $11.31 for the artificial reefs and $12.94 for the combined program.

To estimate total annual use values for each county, we multiplied the number of party-days times the estimated values per party per day. We then estimated the value per person-day by dividing the total annual use value by the total number of person-days. This normalized value per person-day can be compared with results from other studies.

The results are consistent with the idea that natural reefs are preferred to artificial reefs. For Broward County residents, the average per person-day value of the natural reefs was $8.17 versus $2.81 for artificial reefs. Total use is also higher for natural versus artificial reefs. Broward County residents’ natural reef use was about 2.4 million person-days versus about 1.3 million person-days for artificial reefs. This translated into an estimate of total annual use value of about $19.9 million for natural reefs and $3.6 million for artificial reefs. Capitalizing the annual use values, using a three percent interest rate, yields asset values of about $663.8 million for the natural reefs and $120.1 million for the artificial reefs. All of these results are summarized in Table 4.1.3-1.

Annual use value represents the annual flow of total use value (i.e., the recreational benefits) to the reef-using public. From a public policy point of view, government spends money on the protection and management of the valuable resources of the natural and artificial reefs including investments for deploying new artificial reefs and enhancing of natural reefs. In addition, government entities incur variable costs each year to support marine patrol, biologists, planners and even contracts with economists to help carry out the mission of protecting the existing reef system. These costs can be compared with the annual flow of total use value of the reef to determine if this is indeed a wise investment.

The question combining the natural and artificial reef programs yielded estimates of value lower than that derived by adding-up the values of the natural and artificial reef programs separately. This result is consistent with past research. Some respondents are not willing to pay the sum of the values of the individual programs to finance the combined programs. This is largely due to the income constraints as higher bid values are provided to the respondents under the combined



Final Report

programs. The value of the combined programs or $12 million per year would provide a conservative or lower bound estimate of the total natural and artificial reef values.


Broward County, Florida, 2000


(millions)

Annual User Value

(Millions $)


($)

Asset Value at 3%

(Millions $) Natural Reefs 2.437 $19.91 $8.17 $663.8 Snorkeling 0.571 $4.49 $7.86 $149.6 Scuba Diving 0.574 $5.43 $9.46 $181.1 Fishing 1.292 $9.99 $7.73 $333.1 Artificial Reefs 1.281 $3.60 $2.81 $120.1 Snorkeling 0.161 $0.44 $2.73 $14.7 Scuba Diving 0.258 $0.85 $3.29 $28.3 Fishing 0.862 $2.31 $2.69 $77.2 Natural & Artificial Reefs 3.718 $12.04 $3.24 $401.3 Snorkeling 0.732 $2.29 $3.13 $76.2 Scuba Diving 0.832 $3.13 $3.76 $104.3 Fishing 2.154 $6.62 $3.07 $220.7 New Artificial Reefs 1.281 $0.76 $0.60 $25.4 Snorkeling 0.161 $0.14 $0.87 $4.7 Scuba Diving 0.258 $0.27 $1.05 $9.0 Fishing 0.862 $0.35 $0.41 $11.7

Measuring the economic benefits of natural reef systems to policy makers is useful in justifying public budgets for such programs. If protected, the use value for natural reefs will flow into perpetuity. Using a real discount rate of 3 percent, it is estimated that the capitalized value of the natural reefs off Broward County is $663.8 million. Why is this important? Natural reef systems are not privately owned, but are common property resources. If a region or a nation were preparing a balance sheet showing its assets and liabilities, the asset value of the reef system would need to be included. This analysis provides an estimate of the capitalized value (or asset value) of the natural reef system to reef users. Bear in mind that this value only includes the value that reef users place on the reefs and does not include the values that non-reef-users place on the reefs or the economic contribution of the reefs. The estimation of the value of the reefs to non-reef users was not part of this study.

In addition, asset value comes into play when there is an environmental disaster that damages the reefs such as an oil or hazardous waste spill. If the polluter destroyed for the foreseeable future



Final Report

20 percent of the natural reef system off Broward County, then the government could ask for $133 million (i.e., 0.20 times $663.8 million) in compensatory damage. An example of this problem is in the Florida Keys, where ships that destroy natural reefs are required to pay the loss of use value as a result of legal proceedings. Numbers provided here are quite real and useful especially in the case of environmental damage assessment.

As discussed above, artificial reefs had a use value per person less than that of natural reefs as one would expect. However, preservation of the existing artificial reef system of Broward County produces an annual use value of about $3.6 million. Again, this is for the maintenance of these reefs. The capitalized value of the artificial reef system off Broward County is estimated to be $120.1 million. If users were obstructed from getting to Broward County’s artificial reefs, an estimate of damages to the reef users would be either the annual use value lost if users are temporarily obstructed or the capitalized value if users were permanently cut-off from using the artificial reefs.

The logit model estimated for the new artificial reef program found statistically significant differences in willingness-to-pay depending on county, activity and income. Those from Palm Beach and Broward counties had higher willingness to pay than those from Miami-Dade and Monroe counties. Snorkelers and scuba divers had higher values than those who participated in fishing activities. The only other statistically significant variable was household income. As household income levels increased so did willingness-to-pay for new artificial reefs. On a per party per day basis, the estimated values ranged from a high of $3.60 for snorkelers and scuba divers from Broward County to a low of $1.72 for those who participated in fishing activities off Broward County.

As with the other three programs, the estimated per party per day values were multiplied by the total party-days spent on artificial reefs by artificial reefs users in the county to get total annual use value for the county. The total annual use values were then divided by the total annual person-days of artificial reef use in the county to get an estimate of the value per person-day. Again, this normalized value per person-day can be compared with results from other studies.

On a per person-day basis, the estimated values ranged from a low of $0.41 for those fishing to a high of $1.05 for those that participated in scuba diving off Broward County. Across all activities, the average was 60 cents per person-day.

In terms of total annual use value, fishing is the highest valued use for new artificial reefs. The total person-days of artificial reef use while fishing more than compensates for the lower value per person-day. Across all activities, total annual user value associated with a new artificial reef program is almost $762 thousand with an asset value of $25.4 million.

The relatively low marginal willingness to pay of $0.60 per person-day for artificial reef expansion in comparison to artificial reef maintenance discussed above is somewhat expected. If present users do not feel that congestion on artificial reefs is a problem, they would be expected to value expansion lower than maintenance of the existing artificial reefs. However, their



Final Report

willingness to pay anything for expansion demonstrates some level of unhappiness with the existing number of artificial reefs off Broward County. Perhaps, residents are competing with visitors for choice spots or just getting in the way of fishing and diving when arriving at an artificial reef.

4.1.4 Role of “No-Take” Zones Both the economic contribution and the use value of the reef system are based upon the management or lack thereof of these resources. There have been controversies about the wisdom of deploying, for example, artificial reefs. Opponents argue that this encourages over fishing since artificial reefs tend to concentrate fish in a smaller number of places and they become easier targets for fishers. Others find that artificial reefs serve as added habitats and thereby increase the overall biomass available to fishers. The Bell et al., study (1999) of artificial reefs in northwest Florida found that most people fell into the latter group believing that the pie got larger with the deployment of more reefs. However, other studies such as Bolnsack et al., (1997) and Grossman et al., (1997) report results that support opinions of opponents regarding additional artificial reef systems.

In this section, we examine ”no take” zones in the Florida Keys and other counties in southeast Florida. “No-take” zones are defined as areas where reef-users can visit but nothing can be removed from an artificial or natural reef area. The existing reef system is coming under increased pressure to yield stable catch rates for fishing and a pristine environment for snorkeling and scuba diving. Also, the reefs play a vital role in the entire oceanic ecosystem by providing habitat and protection for young fish and other creatures. To provide a net benefit, it is argued that “no-take” zones would actually increase recreational benefits even though takings would be banned in certain areas.

Supporters of “no-take” zones point to the overuse of common property resources such as ocean fishing both by recreational and commercial interests. In effect, “no-take” zones would vest the property right with the government. Although the carrying capacity of a reef system is not evaluated in this study, the concept has widespread validity. This concept has been examined by many natural resource economists with the finding that congestion and declining yields of fish create a decline in use value per day. 3 Bell (1992) found that tourists visiting Florida would go elsewhere if fishery catch rates declined to a certain point from the existing level. No one knows exactly where and to what degree “no-take” zones must be employed to increase the net benefit available to recreational interests. Like the deployment of artificial reefs, “no-take” zones have become a controversial issue. Therefore, as part of this study, respondents were asked their opinions regarding the use of “no-take” zones as a management tool for artificial and natural reefs in southeast Florida.

In each of our four counties, resident reef-users were asked questions regarding “no-take” zones. The results for Broward County are summarized in Table 4.1.4-1. In 1997, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary created 23 areas or zones (13.37 square miles) in which the taking of 3 See Green (1984) and Bell (1992).



Final Report

anything including fish and shellfish is prohibited. It is reasonable to believe that residents of Broward County may have formed an opinion about this management effort and indeed, about three quarters of the Broward County respondents supported this experimental management effort. However, the “not in my backyard view” also had to be tested so respondents were asked for their opinions regarding “no take” zones in Broward County. About 63 percent of the respondents were willing to have “no take” zones off the shore of their county. Respondents were also willing to extend this concept southward to Miami-Dade County and northward through Palm Beach County with about 64 percent supporting this expansion according to the results shown in Table 4.1.4-1.

Finally, respondents were asked for their opinion regarding the percent of the reef system that should be included in “no take” zones. Respondents, on average, would be willing to have “no take” zones cover about 35 percent of the natural reefs off Broward County. Because the average may be skewed by exceptionally high answers, we also looked at the median percent of natural reefs respondents felt might be managed by the use of “no-take” zones. The median, or the midpoint between the highest and lowest answer, was 25 percent of the natural reef system. Such results provide the public with important information regarding resident opinions of “no take” zones in Broward County.

Table 4.1.4-1 (Residents) Opinion of Broward County Residents on

"No Take" Zones for Artificial and Natural Reefs, 2000

Survey Question


Answering "Yes"


Answering "No"



Sample Size

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Support existing "NO TAKE" Zones in the Florida Keys 75% 18% 7% 369

Support "NO TAKE" Zones on some reefs off shore of Broward County 63% 27% 10% 369


64% 24% 12% 369

Average for

All Response Median of

All Responses What Percent of Natural Reefs in Broward County Should be Protected with "NO TAKE" Zones

35% 25% 369

Given the short experience of the Keys “no-take” zones, it is quite remarkable that present reef-users would be willing to establish “no-take” zones in their county. Combined with the results from the Florida Keys (Monroe County) resident survey, these statistics indicate a willingness to



Final Report

support management efforts in the direction of “no-take” zones. Such results are important to public officials in charge of managing the natural reef system off Broward County.

4.1.5 Demographic Information The mail survey administered to Broward County residents included questions regarding demographic characteristics. The reason for collecting such information was to determine what segment of the population will gain by protecting and maintaining artificial and natural reefs and/or designating “no-take” zones as discussed in the very last section. Respondents were asked to provide some background on both themselves and their boating experiences. Thus, the survey was used to collect demographic information as well develop a boater profile to better understand these people called “reef-users” in Broward County. Table 4.1.5-1 presents the results from the mail survey combined with comparable information on the entire Broward County population.

Table 4.1.5-1 (Residents) Demographic Characteristics and Boater Profile of

Reef-Users in Broward County Florida, 2000 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents to Mail Survey

Reef Users

Broward County Population

Median Age 48 39.8 Sex

Male 92% 48% Female 8% 52%


Education Percentage that completed College Degree or More 50% 13%

Median Household Income $72,310 $37,431 Boater Profile

Average Years of Residence in Broward County 26 N/A Average Years of Boating in South Florida 22 N/A Average Length of Boat Used for Saltwater Activities (ft) 25 N/A Percentage of Respondents that belong to fishing and/or

diving clubs 18% N/A Sample Size 374 1 Latest year that educational level attained by county is available is for 1990 from the U.S. Census Bureau. Source: Florida State University and the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1990, 2000).



Final Report

The owners of reef-using registered boats are slightly older than the general population of Broward County. The median age of reef-users is 48 years compared to 39.8 years for the general population. Statistically speaking, there is a real age difference between these two groups. Further, reef-related boating appears to be a male dominated activity as about 92 percent of the respondents indicated they were male compared to 48 percent in the general population. Of course, we have no way to control who fills out the survey instrument once it reaches the boat owner’s residence. The survey is directed at the person to whom it is registered.

With respect to race, white individuals in Broward County dominate boat ownership. About 93 percent of the respondents characterized themselves as white compared to 71 percent in the general population of Broward County. Further, a lesser percentage characterized themselves as Hispanic/Latino (5 percent) as compared to the general population (15 percent).

Nearly 50 percent of the respondents indicated they had at least a college degree compared to 13 percent for the general population in 1990.4 The education level of the general population is probably much higher today than ten years ago, but may not reach the levels reported by the respondents.

Since education and income are positively correlated, it is expected that the median household income reported by reef-users would be higher than the general population. This is indeed the case as confirmed by the last demographic statistic in Table 4.1.5-1 where respondents reported a median household income of $72,310 compared to $37,431 for the general population. Of course, the purchase of a relatively large pleasure craft is also associated with higher income as found by Bell and Leeworthy (1986) and discussed earlier in this chapter. So, this finding is not unusual.

Using the information gathered from the first section of this Chapter on user activity, we can estimate that a minimum of 93,035 residents engaged in at least one reef-using recreational activity during the period December 1999 to November 2000. This was obtained by multiplying the number of registered boats that are estimated to be involved in reef use (23,855) by the average number of residents per party (3.9 individuals). The reason we say minimum is that the turnover rate of the party is unknown. That is, the same residents may not go on every boat outing. There are over 1.2 million residents in Broward County that are over 14 years of age (i.e. about that age at which they could become boaters). The boating population that uses the reef system constitutes a minimum of 7.7 percent of the county’s population (93,035/1.2 million). The boating population that uses the reef system would probably be higher if the party turnover rate (i.e. different ind ividuals on each boat outing) were considered. The information presented here provides some insight on what segments of the Broward County population are being served by artificial and natural reefs off its coast. This should be valuable information for policy makers at the local and state levels.

4 The U.S. Census Bureau has not yet released the educational levels for counties as part of the 2000 Census.



Final Report

Finally, a boater profile for Broward County was developed from the survey results as follows. The typical reef-using boater has lived in Broward County for 26 years and boated for 22 years. The reef-using boaters in our sample own a pleasure craft of 25 feet in length on average. The weighted average of registered boats 16 feet and over in Broward County is also 25 feet so it appears that our sample is particularly reflective of the population based on average boat length. About 18 percent of the respondents were members of fishing and/or diving clubs. This indicator gives some idea of the intensity and degree of interest in recreational fishing, snorkeling and scuba diving off Broward County, Florida.

4.2 Visitors The focus of this section is the socioeconomic value of the reefs associated with visitors to Broward County. As presented in Chapter 1, Introduction, visitors to a county are defined as nonresidents of the county that they are visiting. For example, a person from Miami-Dade County visiting Broward County is considered to be a visitor to Broward County. Likewise, a person from New York visiting Broward County is considered to be a visitor to Broward County.

This section provides the following values regarding visitors to Broward County: reef user activity, economic contribution of the reefs, use value of the reefs and demographic information. Detailed explanations of the methods and data used to estimate these values for Broward County are provided in Chapter 1: Introduction and Chapter 2: Socioeconomic Values of Reefs in Southeast Florida.

4.2.1 User Activity The activity of reef users is summarized in person-days of reef use. For visitors, the number of person-trips to use the reefs is also of interest. In order to measure person-days and person-trips associated with reef use, the total number of person-trips by all visitors to Broward County must be estimated. Total visitation includes visits to Broward County by non-residents of Broward County to participate in any activity be it recreation, business or family matters. The total number of person trips by all visitors to the county was estimated using the Capacity Utilization Model as described in Chapter 2. This model uses a variety of information obtained from the counties and the responses to the General Visitor Survey. The number of person-trips was then converted to the number of person-days spent by all visitors to Broward County using information from the General Visitor Survey.

The number of person-trips taken by all visitors to Broward County and the number of person-days these visitors spent in the county during the year 2000-2001, developed in Chapter 2, are summarized in Table 4.2.1-1.



Final Report

Table 4.2.1-1 (Visitors) Number of Person-Trips and Person-Days

All Visitors to Broward County June 2000 to May 2001 – in millions

Measure of Visitation Summer 2000 Winter 2001 Total Number of Person-Trips 3.31 6.09 9.40 Number of Person-Days 25.94 58.69 84.63 Note: Summer 2000 is from June 2000 to November 2000. Winter 2001 is from December 2000 to May 2001.

Visitors took 9.4 million person-trips to Broward County from June 2000 to May 2001 and spent 85 million person-days in the county.

The number of person-trips by all visitors was used as the basis for estimating the number of person-days visitors spent using the artificial and natural reefs in each county. For each season, the number of boating person-trips is equal to the total number of person-trips by all visitors times the proportion of person-trips taken by visitors who participated in saltwater boating in the county in the past twelve months. This proportion was taken from the General Visitor Survey answer to Question 13 (Which activities and boating modes did you participate in over the past 12 months in this county?). The proportion is equal to the number of respondents who participated in at least one boating activity divided by the total number of respondents to the General Visitor Survey.

To get the number of boating person-trips when the person used the reefs, the number of boating person-trips is multiplied by the proportion of boating person-trips when the respondent used the reefs. This proportion was obtained from the Visitor Boater Screening Tally sheets. These sheets indicated the proportion of boaters intercepted who used the reefs at least once in the past 12 months. The results for the summer, winter and the year are summarized in Table 4.2.1-2.


And Visitors Who Used the Reefs in Broward County Over the Past 12 Months

Season




Taken By Visitors Who

Boateda


Proportion of Boating Person

Trips When the Reef was Used for Recreationb


Summer - June 2000 to Nov. 2001 3,314,292 0.20 668,204 0.99 663,312

Winter – December 2000 to May 2001 6,088,714 0.19 1,145,612 0.99 1,137,225

Year Round - June 2000 to May 2001 9,403,006 1,813,816 1,800,537 a Saltwater Boating Only. From General Visitor Survey Answer to Question 13 (Which activities-modes did you participate in

over the past 12 months in this county). The proportion is equal to the number of respondents who participated in at least one boating activity divided by total number of respondents to the General Visitor Survey.

b From the Visitor Boater Tally Sheets: = 1 - (Q6/(Q6+Q7+Q8+Q10))



Final Report

Of the 9.4 million person-trips visitors took to Broward County from June 2000 to May 2001, 20 percent of these trips involved saltwater boating activities in the summer and 19 percent involved saltwater boating activities in the winter. Of the resulting 1,813,816 boating person-trips by visitors to Broward County, 99 percent of those trips involved recreational reef use. Thus, visitors who used the reefs for recreation in Broward County made about 1.8 million person-trips to the county from June 2000 to May 2001.

Next, the total number of person-days that visitor boaters who used the reefs spent visiting the county was estimated. This estimate is the total boating person-trips when reefs were used times the average days per visit by boaters who use the reefs. The average days per visit by boaters who used the reefs was obtained from Question 10 of the Visitor Boater Survey (How many nights are you spending on this trip?) where each response was increased by one unit to convert nights to days. The average number of days and the total person-days reef users spent in Broward County in 2000-2001 are provided in Table 4.2.1-3.

Table 4.2.1-3 (Visitors) Average Number of Days Visiting Broward County

And Total Person-Days in Broward County By Visitor Boaters Who Used the Reefs

June 2000 to May 2001


Total Person Days Spent Visiting the County

Broward 8.47 15,252,053

Reef-using boaters who visited Broward County spent an average of 8.47 days in the county during their trip. As a result, these visitors spent 15.2 million person-days in Broward County from June 2000 to May 2001.


Question 12 asked the respondent to examine a list of saltwater boating activities and boat modes and read the number corresponding to the activity-boat mode that he/she or someone in his/her party participated in over the past 12 months. The saltwater activity-boat mode list is provided in Appendix B with the Visitor Boater Survey. Question 13 asked if the respondent participated in the activity and boating mode. Question 15 asked how many days in the past 12 months that the respondent participated in the activity-boat mode. From the responses to these questions, the



Final Report

proportions of total visiting days respondents actually spent participating in the activity-boat mode were obtained.

To allocate the total number of days in an activity-boat mode to the use of artificial reefs versus natural reefs versus no reefs, the proportion of fishing days and the proportion of dives spent on each reef/no reef was calculated from the Visitor Boater Survey responses. Question 16 asked the respondent how many days he/she spent on the artificial reef and Question 17 asked the respondent how many days he/she spent on the natural reef. For scuba divers and snorkelers, Question 18 asked for the total number of dives and Questions 19 and 20 asked for the number of dives on artificial versus natural reefs. A dive is defined as exiting and reentering the boat and applies to both divers and snorkelers. From the responses to these questions, the proportions of fishing days spent on artificial, natural and no reefs and the proportions of dives spent on artificial, natural and no reefs were obtained. For fishing charter and fishing party boats, the proportion of days spent on artificial versus natural versus no reefs was taken from the fishing-related responses to the charter/party boat operator survey for Broward County.

The proportion of visitor days that visitor boaters who use the reefs participated in fishing and diving/snorkeling and the proportion of fishing days and scuba/snorkeling dives that visitor boaters spent on the artificial, natural and no reefs for Broward County are presented in Table 4.2.1-4.

Table 4.2.1-4 (Visitors) Percent of Visitor Person-Days That Reef-Using Boaters

Participated in the Saltwater Recreation Activity And Percent of Fishing Days or Dives Spent on Artificial, Natural and No Reefs

From Visitor Boater Survey Broward County


Activity Total

Respondents


Days Artificial

Reefs Natural Reefs

No Reefs

Sum of Percentages

Fishinga 252 27% 47% 52% 1% 100% Scuba Diving/ Snorkelingb 252 22% 51% 48% 1% 100% a Percent of fishing days on each reef type is reported. b Percent of dives on each reef type is reported. A dive is a boat exit and re-entry. Note: Boating Modes are Charter, Party, Rental, and Private (Own or Friend’s) Boat.

Visitor boaters who came to Broward County to use the reefs spent 27 percent of their visiting days participating in saltwater fishing from either a charter, party, rental or private boat. Of these fishing days, 47 percent of days were spent fishing near artificial reefs, 52 percent of days were spent fishing near natural reefs and 1 percent of days were spent fishing near no reefs. Also, visitor boaters who came to the county to use the reefs spent 22 percent of their visiting days scuba diving or snorkeling. Of these diving/snorkeling days, 51 percent of dives were spent



Final Report

on artificial reefs, 48 percent of dives were spent on natural reefs, and 1 percent of dives were spent on no reefs.

The number of person-days spent in each saltwater boating activity-boat mode was estimated as the total person days reef-using boaters spent visiting the county in year 2000-2001 (from Table 4.2.1-3) times the proportion visitor days that these visitors spent participating in each activity-boat mode. Then the number of person-days spent in each saltwater boating activity-boat mode was allocated to artificial and natural reefs based on either the proportion of days or the proportion of dives spent in that activity-boat mode on or near artificial versus natural reefs. Proportion of days was used for all activities except scuba diving and snorkeling where the proportion of dives was used to provide a more accurate indicator of reef use.

A summary of the total person-days visitors spent participating in reef-related recreation by type of activity and by type of reef in Broward County is provided in Table 4.2.1-5. The total person-days visitors spent participating in each saltwater activity and boat mode by type of reef is provided in Table 4.2.1-6.

Visitors to Broward County spent about 5.7 million person-days on the reef system from June 2000 to May 2001. About 2.7 million of these days were spent on artificial reefs and about 3.0 million of these days were spent on natural reefs.


By Recreation Activity – Broward County Number of Person-Days – in millions

Activity Artificial Reefs Natural Reefs All Reefs Snorkeling 0.09 0.27 0.35 Scuba Diving 1.59 1.43 3.02 Fishing 1.00 1.29 2.29 Glass Bottom Boat Sightseeing 0.02 0.04 0.05 Total 2.70 3.03 5.71

4.2.2 Economic Contribution – Visitors The Visitor Boater Survey asked respondents how much money they and members of their party spent on the last day that they participated in fishing, scuba diving and snorkeling in the county. The respondent was also asked how many people spent or benefited from those expenditures. The respondent was asked only to provide the amount of money spent in the county of interview. From this information, a picture of the average itemized expenditures per person per fishing or diving day and by boating mode was estimated.



Final Report

Table 4.2.1-6 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Visitors Spent Participating in

Saltwater Boating Activities and Reef Use - June 2000 to May 2001 Broward County


Activity Boat Mode

Number of Person

Days Artificial

Reefs Natural Reefs

No Reefs

Charter/Party 233,553 52,880 176,267 4,407 Rental 0 0 0 0 Snorkeling Private 125,239 34,789 90,450 0 Charter/Party 2,613,090 1,370,373 1,233,489 9,228 Rental 176,011 88,006 88,006 0 Scuba Diving Private 240,323 128,745 111,579 0 Charter 338,483 48,895 52,970 236,619 Party 2,034,284 293,859 318,347 1,422,078 Rental 0 0 0 0


Private 1,133,919 471,151 637,970 24,797 Charter/Party 0 0 0 0 Rental 0 0 0 0


Private 88,006 29,335 44,298 0 Charter 6,770 978 1,059 4,732 Party 169,242 24,447 68,826 118,309 Rental 0 0 0 0

Fishing Bottom

Private 301,250 134,976 166,274 0 Glass Bottom Boat 54,157 16,483 37,675 0 Back Country Excursion 20,309 0 0 20,309

Rental 10,154 0 0 10,154



skis, wave runners, etc.) Private 176,011 0 0 176,011 Charter/Party 0 0 0 0 Rental 0 0 0 0 Sailing Private 44,003 0 0 44,003 Charter/Party 60,927 0 0 60,927 Rental 3,385 0 0 3,385 Other Boating Activities Private 10,154 0 0 10,154




Final Report

The average itemized per person expenditures by those who participated in each activity and boat mode in Broward County are provided in Table 4.2.2-1. Broward County reef-using visitors who went saltwater fishing on their own boat, a friend’s boat or a rental boat spent, on average, $93 per person per day on the day that they went fishing. This amount is comprised of $18 for boat fuel, $12 for lodging, $14 for food and beverages at stores and $17 for food and beverages at restaurants and bars and $13 for shopping, among other items.

The average expenditure of persons who fished on charter boats was $202 per person per day. About $59 was the cost of the charter boat while $19 was spent on lodging, $18 was spent on food and beverages at stores, $46 was spent on food and beverages at restaurants and bars, $14 was spent on auto rental, and $40 was spent on shopping.

Persons who fished on party boats spent, on average, $169 per person on the day they went fishing which included $29 for the party boat fee, $22 for lodging, $12 for food and beverages at stores, $51 for food and beverages at restaurants and bars, $13 for auto rental and $30 for shopping.

Broward County reef-using visitors who went scuba diving or snorkeling on their own boat, a friend’s boat or a rental boat spent, on average, $91 per person per day on the day they went diving. This amount is comprised of $18 for boat fuel, $11 for lodging, $15 for food and beverages at stores and $15 for food and beverages at restaurants and bars.

Visitors who went diving on charter or party boats spent, on average, $246 per person per day. This expenditure was comprised of $68 per day for the dive charter or party boat, $34 per day for lodging and $10 per day for food and beverages at stores, $37 per day for food and beverages in restaurants and bars and $73 for shopping, among other items.

The lodging expenditure item includes lodging costs for hotels, motels and campgrounds or if the respondent paid by the day or by the week for the other accommodations. The $33 per person per day for lodging may seem lower than the actual per person rate of a hotel or motel. Bear in mind that only a portion of visitors stay at a hotel or motel. Visitor accommodations also include campgrounds, family or friends, second homes and time shares. Also, as discussed previously, many visitors spend only one day in the county and therefore do not incur the cost of a room. The cost of the second home or time share is not included in the lodging cost because this is a monthly or up front cost tha t can, at best, only be partially due to the existence of the reefs.



Final Report


Participating in Each Reef-Related Activity and Boating Mode Broward County



Item

Own, Friend's or


Boat Party Boat Own, Friend's or Rental Boat




Auto Gas $6.07 $6.09 $10.93 $8.74 $5.56 Auto Rental $3.16 $13.81 $12.57 $0.00 $12.78 Equipment Rental $0.00 $0.00 $1.92 $0.00 $2.24 Shopping $13.47 $40.11 $30.04 $13.53 $73.15 Total $93.12 $201.65 $169.24 $90.70 $245.56 Number of Respondents 43 53 27 19 127 Number of Respondents and Party Membersc 136 147 54 58 306 a Expenditures per person per day were estimated from the responses to the Visitor Boater Survey. For each Activity-Mode, the

expenditures for each item were summed over all the respondents who participated in the Activity-Mode. This sum was divided by the total number of respondents and party members who spent or benefited from the expenditures.





Final Report

The expenditures per person per day were multiplied by the number of person-days by boating mode and reef type to obtain an estimate of the total expenditures associated with reef related activities. The itemized total expenditures associated with reef use in Broward County in 2000-2001 are provided in Table 4.2.2-2. The expenditures associated with glass bottom boating days only included the fee per person per ride ($20). The other expenditures associated with the entire day spent in the county were not included for glass bottom boat riders because these visitors are likely in the county for other reasons either not reef-related or included in the other reef-related recreational activities.

Visitors who used the reefs in Broward County spent $1,024,000,000 ($1 billion) on reef-related expenditures. Of this amount $496 million was associated with artificial reef-related expenditures and $529 million was associated with natural reef-related expenditures.

The reef-related visitor expenditures were then used to estimate the economic contribution of artificial and natural reefs to each of the counties. As discussed in the Introduction of the Report, expenditures by visitors generate income and jobs within the industrie s that supply reef-related goods and services, such as charter / party boat operations, restaurants and hotels. These industries are called direct industries. In addition, these expenditures create multiplier effects wherein additional income and employment is created as the income earned by the reef-related industries is re-spent within the county. These additional effects of reef-related expenditures are called indirect and induced. Indirect effects are generated as the reef-related industries purchase goods and services from other industries in the county. Induced effects are created when the employees of the direct and indirect industries spend their money in the county.



Final Report

Table 4.2.2-2 (Visitors) Total Visitor Expenditures In Broward County Associated with Reef Use


Item Artificial Reef Natural Reef Total Total Number of Person Days 2,694,915 3,027,210 5,722,125 Charter / Party Boat Fee $109,166,167 $110,508,817 $219,674,984 Boat Rental 216,844 250,030 466,873 Boat Fuel 16,326,072 20,969,451 37,295,524 Air Refills 2,963,161 2,975,942 5,939,103 Tackle 817,690 1,091,875 1,909,565 Bait 3,051,152 4,074,253 7,125,405 Ice 1,593,185 2,017,408 3,610,593 Ramp Fees 1,060,145 1,235,500 2,295,644 Marina Fees 1,352,237 1,672,381 3,024,618 Lodging 66,625,405 70,694,385 137,319,791 Camping Fees 1,219,072 1,242,955 2,462,027 Food and Beverages - Stores 31,911,169 36,176,792 68,087,961 Food and Beverages - Restaurants/Bars 85,044,260 92,450,853 177,495,113 Auto Gas 17,753,895 20,087,351 37,841,245 Auto Rental 24,887,396 26,310,827 51,198,222 Equipment Rental 3,793,516 3,895,783 7,689,299 Shopping 127,637,167 132,276,824 259,913,991 Glass Bottom Boat Ride 329,653 753,493 1,083,146 Total $495,748,186 $528,684,919 $1,024,433,105

The direct, indirect and induced increase in sales, total income, employment and indirect business taxes generated by the reef-related expenditures were estimated for Broward County using the IMPLAN Regional Input-Output Model. This model uses detailed data on the economies of this county to estimate economic multipliers and to model the impact of reef-related expenditures on the economy.

The economic contribution of the reefs to Broward County is provided in Table 4.2.2-3. The sales contribution is defined as the value of the additional output produced in the county due to the reef-related expenditures. The total income contribution is defined as the sum of employee compensation, proprietor’s income, interest, rents, and profits generated as a result of the reef-related expenditures. Income is the money that stays in the county’s economy. The employment contribution is the number of full- time and part-time jobs created due to the reef-related expenditures. The indirect business tax contribution is the sum of the additional excise taxes, property taxes, fees, licenses, and sales taxes collected due to the reef-related expenditures.



Final Report

Table 4.2.2-3 Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Expenditures by Visitors to Broward County

Economic Area is Broward County June 2000 to May 2001 – In Millions of 2000 dollars

Reef Type/Economic Contribution Direct Indirect Induced Total Artificial Reefs Sales $493.3 $136.67 $241.11 $871.08 Total Income $264.67 $75.01 $149.75 $489.43 Employment (full and part-time jobs) 11,155 1,548 3,306 16,009 Indirect Business Taxes $46.87 $7.87 $15.11 $69.85 Natural Reefs Sales $526.11 $145.52 $257.48 $929.11 Total Income $282.27 $79.75 $159.93 $521.95 Employment (full and part-time jobs) 11,814 1,645 3,530 16,989 Indirect Business Taxes $50.15 $8.37 $16.13 $74.69 Natural and Artificial Reefs Sales $1,019.41 $282.18 $498.59 $1,800.19 Total Income $546.97 $154.76 $309.67 $1,011.37 Employment (full and part-time jobs) 22,969 3,193 6,837 32,999 Indirect Business Taxes $97.02 $16.23 $31.24 $144.49

Reef-related expenditures by visitors to Broward County (direct sales in Table 4.2.2-3) during the period June 2000 to May 2001 resulted in $1.8 billion in sales to county businesses. These sales generated $1 billion in income and 33,000 jobs. About $144 million in indirect business taxes were collected as a result. About 48 percent of these values were the result of artificial reef-related expenditures and 52 percent of these values were the result of natural reef-related expenditures.

4.2.3 Use Value Use value is the maximum amount of money that reef users are willing to pay to maintain the reefs in their existing condition and to add more artificial reefs to the system. Use value was discussed in the introduction to this report. In this study, four types of use values were estimated: (1) the value to natural reef users of maintaining the natural reefs in their existing condition; (2) the value to artificial reef users of maintaining the artificial reefs in their existing condition; (3) the value to all reef users of maintaining the artificial and natural reefs; and (4) the value of adding and maintaining additional artificial reefs. Use value is presented in terms of per person per day of reef use and in aggregate for all users of the reef system.

The visitor reef-user values associated with maintaining the reefs in their existing conditions for Broward County is provided in Table 4.2.3-1. Use value per person day means the value per person day of artificial, natural or all reef use, as specified in the table. The respondent was asked to state yes, no or don’t know to a specified payment to maintain the artificial reefs, the natural reefs and a combined program that would protect both types of reefs. The scenario provided to the respondent was as follows.



Final Report


Both of these plans will involve increased costs to local businesses that will ultimately be passed on to both residents and visitors in southeast Florida. We are doing this survey because local government agencies want to know whether you support one, both or none of these plans and if you would be willing to incur higher costs to pay for these plans. Please keep in mind that whether you support these plans or not would not have any effect on your ability to participate in any boating activity or other recreation in southeast Florida.”

Then the respondent was asked a yes or no question regarding the natural reef plan, the artificial reef plan and both plans. For example, the question regarding both plans read: “Suppose that both of the above plans to maintain the natural and artificial reefs in southeast Florida were put together in a combined program. Consider once again your total trip cost for your last trip to use the reefs in southeast Florida including travel expenses, lodging, and all boating expenses. If your total costs for this trip would have been $_____ higher, would you be willing to pay this amount to maintain the artificial and natural reefs?”



Chapter 2.2.2 provides a general description of the procedures used to analyze the data and to estimate the user values presented here. For a more technical discussion, please see the Technical Appendix to this report. The Technical Appendix is a separate document that

5 For a complete description of the contingent valuation questions, please refer to the Visitor Boater Survey

and the Blue Card (which is a white page in this report but labeled “Blue Card”) in Appendix B.



Final Report

describes the methods used to derive the values presented here and also provides alternative estimates using different estimation methods. In this final report, the estimates of total annual use value, use value per person-day, and the asset value of the reefs are those that were derived using the logit model.

The estimated use values by type of activity are presented in Table 4.2.3-2 and are consistent with the idea that natural reefs are preferred to artificial reefs although, for Broward County, the difference is not vary large. For Broward County visitors, the average per person-day value of the natural reefs was $21.04 versus $19.39 for artificial reefs. Total use is also higher for natural versus artificial reefs. Broward County visitors’ natural reef use was over 3 million person-days versus about 2.7 million person-days for artificial reefs. This translated into an estimate of total annual use value of about $63.7 million for natural reefs and $52.3 million for artificial reefs. Capitalizing the annual use values, using a three percent interest rate, yields asset values of about $2.1 billion for the natural reefs and $1.7 billion for the artificial reefs. When both artificial and natural reef maintenance programs are considered, total use value is $114 million per year for an asset value of $3.8 billion.

Annual use value represents the annual flow of total use value (i.e., the recreational benefits) to the reef-using public. From a public policy point of view, government spends money on the protection and management of the valuable resources of the natural and artificial reefs. Investments include deploying new artificial reefs and enhancing natural reefs. In addition, government entities incur variable costs each year to support marine patrol, biologists, planners and even contracts with economists to help carry out the mission of protecting the existing reef system. These costs can be compared with the annual flow of total use value of the reef to determine if this is indeed a wise investment.

The question combining the natural and artificial reef programs yielded estimates of value lower than that derived by adding-up the values of the natural and artificial reef programs separately. However, for Broward County residents, this difference was not significant. This result is consistent with past research. Some respondents are not willing to pay the sum of the values of the individual programs to finance the combined programs. This is largely due to the income constraints as higher bid values are provided to the respondents under the combined programs. The value of the combined programs would provide a conservative or lower bound estimate of the total natural and artificial reef values.

The capitalized value of the reef user values is the present value of the annual values calculated at three percent discount rate. It represents the “stock” value analogous to land market values. The capitalized visitor reef user value for associated with Broward County reefs, both artificial and natural is $3.8 billion. Bear in mind that this value only includes the value that visitor reef users place on the reefs and does not include the values that resident reef users and non-reef-users place on the reefs or the economic contribution of the reefs. The estimation of this value was not part of this study.



Final Report

Reef users’ willingness to pay to invest in and maintain “new” artificial reefs is provided in Table 4.2.3-3. The use value per person-day is the value per day or a portion of a day of artificial reef use. In Broward County, reef users are willing to pay $15 million annually for this program. Scuba divers have the highest value associated with the new artificial reef program.


Data Represents June 2000 to May 2001 Visitor Reef-Users in Broward County

Item All Reefs - Artificial

and Natural Artificial Reefs Natural Reefs

Number of Person-Days of Reef Use 5,722,126 2,694,916 3,027,210 Use Value Per Person-Day ($2000) $19.92 $19.39 $21.04 Annual Use Value - ($2000) $113,982,216 $52,259,828 $63,699,452 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate ($2000) $3,799,407,200 $1,741,994,267 $2,123,315,067

Table 4.2.3-2 (Visitors)

Value of Reefs to Visitors to Broward County, by Reef Type and Activity, 2000-2001



Natural Reefs 3,027,210 $63,699,452 $21.04 Snorkeling 266,717 $2,475,446 $9.28 Scuba Diving 1,433,074 $31,359,551 $21.88 Fishing 1,289,745 $29,369,538 $22.77 Glass Bottom Boat 37,675 $494,917 $13.14

Artificial Reefs 2,694,916 $52,259,828 $19.39 Snorkeling 87,669 $791,396 $9.03 Scuba Diving 1,587,123 $23,469,635 $14.79 Fishing 1,003,641 $27,777,415 $27.68 Glass Bottom Boat 16,483 $221,382 $13.43

Natural & Artificial Reefs 5,722,126 $113,982,216 $19.92 Snorkeling 354,386 $2,900,266 $8.18 Scuba Diving 3,020,197 $59,584,003 $19.73 Fishing 2,293,386 $50,857,974 $22.18 Glass Bottom Boat 54,157 $639,973 $11.82

New Artificial Reefs 2,694,916 $14,944,495 $5.55 Snorkeling 87,669 $190,895 $2.18 Scuba Diving 1,587,123 $7,934,751 $5.00 Fishing 1,003,641 $6,764,935 $6.74 Glass Bottom Boat 16,483 $53,916 $3.27



Final Report

Table 4.2.3-3 (Visitors) Estimated Use Value of Investing in and Maintaining

"New" Artificial Reefs in the County Visitor Reef-Users in Broward County

Item Value Number of Person-Days of Artificial Reef Use 2,694,915 Use Value Per Person-Day for "New" Artificial Reefs ($2000) $5.55 Annual Use Values for "New" Artificial Reefs $14,944,495 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate ($2000) $498,149,833 Note: Use value per person-day is use value per whole day or portion of a day of artificial reef use.

4.2.4 Demographic Information The Visitor Boater Survey asked the respondent questions regarding his/her socioeconomic characteristics so that a picture of the typical reef user could be developed. The results for Broward County are summarized in Table 4.2.4-1.

Table 4.2.4-1 (Visitors) Demographic Characteristics of Visitor Reef-Users in Broward County, 2000

Characteristic Broward County Median Age of Respondent – Years 39 Sex of Respondent

Male 77% Female 23%

Race of Respondent White 89% Black 7% Other 4%

Percent Hispanic / Latino 13% Median Household Income $87,500 Average Years Boating in Southeast Florida 6.7 Average Length of Own Boat Used in Saltwater Boating in Feet 27 Percent of Respondents Who Belong to Fishing and/or Diving Clubs 12%



Final Report

4.3 Total – Residents and Visitors This section summarizes the user activities, economic contribution and use values associated with the artificial and natural reefs for both residents and visitors of Broward County. Demographic information of both resident and visitor reef users is also provided.

4.3.1 User Activity The numbers of person-days spent using the reefs in Broward County by reef type and population (residents and visitors) are summarized in Table 4.3.1-1. Visitors and residents spent about 9.4 million person-days using artificial and natural reefs in Broward County during the 12 month period from June 2000 to May 2001. Residents spent 3.7 million person-days and visitors spent 5.7 million person-days. Reef users spent 3.9 million person-days using artificial reefs and 5.5 million person-days using natural reefs. A summary of reef use by type of activity is provided in Table 4.3.1-2.

Table 4.3.1-1 Number of Person-Days Spent on Artificial and Natural Reefs

in Broward County Residents and Visitors – in millions

Population Artificial Reefs Natural Reefs All Reefs

Residents 1.28 2.44 3.72 Visitors 2.70 3.02 5.72 Total 3.98 5.46 9.44

Table 4.3.1-2 Number of Person-Days Spent Using Reefs in Broward County by

Recreational Activity Residents and Visitors – in millions

Activity Residents Visitors Total

Snorkeling 0.73 0.35 1.09 Scuba Diving 0.83 3.02 3.85 Fishing 2.15 2.29 4.45 Glass Bottom Boats - 0.05 0.05 Total 3.71 5.71 9.44 Note: Residents were not asked about their participation in glass bottom boat sightseeing.

The popularity of reef-related diving is about equal to the popularity of reef-related fishing. Fishing comprised 4.4 million person-days while scuba diving and snorkeling comprised 3.3 million person-days and 1.1 person-days, respectively. Visitor reef-related recreation comprises 65 percent of total reef-related recreation by residents and visitors in Broward County. Visitors spent significantly more days scuba diving than did residents.



Final Report

4.3.2 Economic Contribution The total economic contribution of the reefs to Broward County includes the contribution of reef expenditures to sales, income and employment. Expenditures by visitors generate income and jobs within the industries that supply reef-related goods and services, such as charter / party boat operations, restaurants and hotels. These industries are called direct industries. In addition, these visitor expenditures create multiplier effects wherein additional income and employment is created as the income earned by the reef-related industries is re-spent within the county. These additional effects of reef-related expenditures are called indirect and induced. Indirect effects are generated as the reef-related industries purchase goods and services from other industries in the county. Induced effects are created when the employees of the direct and indirect industries spend their money in the county.



The economic contributions of the artificial, natural and all reefs to Broward County are provided in Tables 4.3.2-1 through 4.3.2-3. The sales contribution is defined as the value of the additional output produced in the county due to the reef-related expenditures. The total income contribution is defined as the sum of employee compensation, proprietor’s income, interest, rents, and profits generated as a result of the reef-related expenditures. The employment contribution is the number of full- time and part-time jobs created due to the reef-related expenditures.

As presented in Table 4.3.2-3, reef-related expenditures in Broward County generated $2.1 billion in sales during the 12-month period from June 2000 to May 2001. These sales resulted in $1.1 billion in income to Broward County residents and provided 35,500 jobs in Broward County. Artificial reef-related expenditures accounted for 48 percent of the economic contribution of all reefs and natural reef-related expenditures accounted for 52 percent of the economic contribution.



Final Report

Table 4.3.2-1 Economic Contribution of Artificial Reef-Related Expenditures to

Broward County June 2000 to May 2001 – In Millions of 2000 dollars


Resident $90.90 $12.50 812 Visitor $493.30 $264.67 11,155 Total $584.20 $277.17 11,967

Indirect $136.67 $75.01 1,548 Induced $241.11 $149.75 3,306 Total $961.98 $501.93 16,821 a The direct contribution is the actual expenditures made in the county. b Total income includes employee compensation, proprietor's income, interest, rents and profits c Employment includes the number of full-time and part-time jobs.

Table 4.3.2-2 Economic Contribution of Natural Reef-Related Expenditures to

Broward County June 2000 to May 2001 – In Millions of 2000 dollars


Resident $178.90 $25.20 1,662 Visitor $526.11 $282.26 11,814 Total $705.01 $307.46 13,476

Indirect $145.51 $79.75 1,645 Induced $257.48 $159.93 3,530 Total $1,108.00 $547.11 18,651 a The direct contribution is the actual expenditures made in the county. b Total income includes employee compensation, proprietor's income, interest, rents and profits c Employment includes the number of full-time and part-time jobs.



Final Report

Table 4.3.2-3 Economic Contribution of All Reef-Related Expenditures to Broward

County June 2000 to May 2001 – In Millions of 2000 dollars

Contribution to: Round of Spending Sales Incomeb Employmentc

Directa Resident $269.80 $37.70 2,474 Visitor $1,019.41 $546.97 22,969 Total $1,289.21 $584.67 25,443

Indirect $282.18 $154.76 3,193 Induced $498.59 $309.67 6,837 Total $2,069.98 $1,049.43 35,473 a The direct contribution is the actual expenditures made in the county. b Total income includes employee compensation, proprietor's income, interest, rents and profits c Employment includes the number of full-time and part-time jobs.

4.3.3 Use Value In this study, four types of use values were estimated: (1) the value to natural reef users of maintaining the natural reefs in their existing condition; (2) the value to artificial reef users of maintaining the artificial reefs in their existing condition; (3) the value to all reef users of maintaining both the artificial and natural reefs and (4) the value of adding and maintaining additional artificial reefs. In general, use value is the maximum amount of money that reef users are willing to pay to maintain the reefs in their existing condition and to add more artificial reefs to the system. Use value is presented in terms of per person per day of reef use and in aggregate for all users of the reef system.

The annual value Broward County visitors and residents place on protecting the reefs in their existing condition and the associated capitalized value is presented in Table 4.3.3-1. The annual value visitor and resident reef-users place on investing in and maintaining “new” artificial reefs is presented in Table 4.3.3-2. These values were explained in Sections 4.1.3 and 4.2.3.



Final Report


Capitalized Value Associated With Reef Use Data Represents June 2000 to May 2001

Broward County, Florida Item Residents Visitors Total

All Reefs - Artificial and Natural Number of Person-Days of Reef Use (millions) 3.72 5.72 9.44 Use Value Per Person-Day $3.24 $19.92 $13.35 Annual Use Value - (million dollars) $12.04 $113.98 $126.02 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate (billion dollars) $0.40 $3.80 $4.20 Artificial Reefs Number of Person-Days of Reef Use (millions) 1.28 2.69 3.97 Use Value Per Person-Day $2.81 $19.39 $14.07 Annual Use Value - (million dollars) $3.60 $52.26 $55.86 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate (billion dollars) $0.12 $1.74 $1.86 Natural Reefs Number of Person-Days of Reef Use (millions) 2.44 3.03 5.47 Use Value Per Person-Day $8.17 $21.04 $15.16 Annual Use Value - (million dollars) $19.91 $63.70 $82.61 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate (billion dollars) $0.66 $2.12 $2.78


Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs Broward County, Florida

Item Residents Visitors Total

Number of Person-Days of Artificial Reef Use (millions) 1.28 2.69 3.97 Use Value Per Person-Day for "New" Artificial Reefs $0.60 $5.55 $3.95 Annual Use Values for "New" Artificial Reefs (million dollars) $0.76 $14.94 $15.70 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate ($2000) $25.40 $498.15 $523.55

4.3.4 Demographic Information This section summarizes and compares the demographic characteristics of visitor and resident reef users. These characteristics were obtained from the resident boater survey and the visitor boater survey. They are summarized in Tables 4.3.4-1. A comparison of the demographics indicate that resident and visitors are very similar in terms of age, race, income, and membership in fishing and/or diving clubs.



Final Report


Broward County, 2000 Resident Reef-Users Visitor Reef-Users


Male 92% 77%





Median Household Income $72,310 $87,500 Residents Visitors


22 6.7

Residents Visitors


25 27

Residents Visitors


19% 12%


Chapter 5: Socioeconomic Value of Reefs in Miami-Dade County

This chapter describes the Socioeconomic Value of Artificial and Natural Reefs in Miami-Dade County to residents and visitors. For both groups this chapter discusses the following topics.

§ Volume of user activity on both artificial and natural reefs off Miami-Dade County;


§ Resident and visitor “use value” associated with recreating on artificial and natural reefs in Miami-Dade County; and,

§ Demographic and boater profile of reef users in Miami-Dade County.


5.1 Residents The focus of this section is on the socioeconomic values of the reefs off the Coast of Miami-Dade County to resident boaters. Resident boaters are those individuals who live within Miami-Dade County and use a boat that is owned by a resident of the county to visit the reef system. Resident boats used to visit the reef system are defined as those greater than 16 feet in length and are registered with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

5.1.1 User Activity This chapter first considers the volume of resident user activity associated with the artificial and natural reefs off Miami-Dade County. User activity is expressed in terms of the number of boating days or “party-days” since each boat carries one or more individuals. Also, user activity is analyzed in terms of the kinds of recreational activities (e.g., snorkeling) that parties participate in when they visit the reef system.

To measure party-days for any recreational resource, it is important to define what universe the research is intended to measure. In this study, we wish to measure the number of party-days spent on artificial and natural reefs in the Atlantic Ocean off the Coast of Miami-Dade County. For most residents, their own boats are used to facilitate this recreational process. The use of party boats or charter rentals by residents was not estimated in this study.

In 1999-2000, there were 67,936 registered pleasure boats in Miami-Dade County according to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (2001). These pleasure craft were divided into the following size classes:

5.0 Socioeconomic Value of Reefs in Miami-Dade County



Number of Boats

Percentage of Total


Less than 12 feet 14,041 20.67% 20.67% 12 feet to 15'11'' 8,859 13.04% 33.71% 16 feet to 25'11" 34,912 51.39% 85.10% 26 feet to 39'11" 8,431 12.41% 97.51% 40 feet to 64'11" 1,591 2.34% 99.85% 65 feet to 109'11" 97 0.14% 99.99% Greater than 110 feet 5 0.01% 100.00% Total 67,936 100.00%

The largest boat size category of pleasure craft in Miami-Dade County is between 16 and nearly 26 feet in length (51 percent).

Three adjustments were made to reach the target population of registered boats for Miami-Dade County that may visit the reef system. First, sampling was restricted to pleasure craft over 16 feet in length. This was in response to expert opinion that very few pleasure craft less than 16 feet could reach the reef system. Thus, the mail survey was targeted at pleasure craft over 16 feet long so that nonusers could be avoided and to increase the sample size on that segment of the boating population with the highest propensity to use the reef system. This reduced the target boat population in Miami-Dade County to 45,036 pleasure craft.

In addition, not everyone with a relatively large boat would use an artificial and/or natural reef in the last twelve months. In fact, the results of the survey indicated that 68.5 percent of these larger vessels used the Miami-Dade County reef system in the last 12 months or 30,850 pleasure craft. Finally, it was determined that about one-half a percent of registered boats in the target population had a residence somewhere outside Miami-Dade County. Thus, the target population was again reduced to 30,695 pleasure craft to reflect only resident boat owners likely to use the reefs via their own boat.

On average, respondents indicated that over a 12-month period (1999-2000) they used the reef system on 36 separate days while engaging in three main recreational activities: fishing, snorkeling and scuba diving. Remember, these boaters have the highest propensity to use the reef system compared to smaller vessels. Based upon this information, it was estimated that over this 12-month period, Miami-Dade County residents spent 1,105,005 “party- days” on the reef system (i.e., 36 party-days times 30,695 pleasure craft).

In conducting the mail survey, reef-users from Miami-Dade County were asked to distribute their 36 party-days in two ways. First, they were asked to distribute their reef usage among three recreational activities as follows: (1) Fishing, (2) Snorkeling and (3) Scuba Diving. Second, respondents were asked to distribute each of these recreational activities between artificial and



natural reefs. Table 5.1.1-1 shows the distribution of party-days for resident boaters in Miami-Dade County.

Miami-Dade County residents spent an estimated 54 percent of their party-days fishing on the artificial and natural reefs followed by snorkeling (26 percent) and scuba diving (20 percent). For all the recreational activities on reefs, there was a slight preference for natural reefs with 66 percent of the party-days spent visiting natural reefs. Snorkelers had the highest propensity to use the natural reefs with 72 percent of the respondents using the natural reef for this activity.

On the right hand side of Table 5.1.1-1, user activity, measured in ”person-days” is estimated. A “person-day” is equivalent to an individual traveling to use the reef system for part or all of one day. While party-days gives a “boater dimension” to an activity in and around the reef system, person-days yields a “people dimension” to the use of the reef system. The former is especially useful in judging the adequacy of the boating infrastructure such as marinas and boat ramps while the latter is used in calculating recreational value which is done on a person-day basis.

The number of person-days was calculated by multiplying by the average size of the party (i.e. number of individuals per party) by the number of party-days. However, one important adjustment to average party size was necessary to calculate residential person-days. Therefore, the average party size was reduced by subtracting individuals who were considered to be visitors (i.e. non-residents of Miami-Dade County). About 17 percent of the average party was identified as nonresidents. Thus, Table 5.1.1-1 utilizes the average resident party size to calculate person-days, which makes this adjustment. The average residential party size does not vary appreciably among the various reef-related recreational activities and averages about 3.92 residents per party. Because of this, the distribution of person-days per activity is similar to the distribution of party-days discussed above. For example, saltwater fishing on reefs garnered 2.6 million person-days or 57 percent of all person-days during the 12-month period (1999-2000). The total number of person-days for residents using the reef system off Miami-Dade County over a 12-month period was estimated at 4.5 million.

Now, we turn to the economic contribution of resident reef users to the Miami-Dade County economy.



Table 5.1.1-1 (Residents) Estimated Resident User Activity as Measured by Party-Days and Person-Days on

Artificial and Natural Reefs off Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2000 Number and Distribution of Party-Days by


Activity/ Type Of Reef


Percentage of Party-Days Per Activity by Reef

Type

Percentage of Total Party-Days

Per Activity


Number of Resident Person-Days1 by Activity

by Reef Type

Percentage of Person-Days Per Activity by Reef

Type

Percentage of Total Person-

Days Per Activity

Fishing 54% 4.32 57% Artificial 226,747 38% 979,547 38% Natural 369,956 62% 1,598,210 62% Subtotal 596,703 100% 2,577,757 100% Snorkeling 26% 4.28 27% Artificial 80,445 28% 344,305 28% Natural 206,857 72% 885,348 72% Subtotal 287,302 100% 1,229,653 100% Scuba Diving 20% 3.16 16% Artificial 68,510 31% 216,492 31% Natural 152,491 69% 481,872 69% Subtotal 221,001 100% 698,363 100% All Activities Artificial 375,702 34% 1,540,343 Natural 729,304 66% 2,965,430 Total 1,105,006 100% 100% 4,505,773 100% 1 Resident person-days were calculated by multiplying the number of party-days by the average resident party size.



5.1.2 Economic Contribution To fully understand the economic contribution of reefs to Miami-Dade County it is first important to recognize what factors influence the demand for boating in this area. This will help in understanding the nature of boating in the county and how it relates to the use of artificial and natural reefs. In a study by Bell and Leeworthy (1986), the authors found that the demand for boats by individuals was related to boat prices, population and per capita income. Therefore, it is expected that there would be a higher number of registered pleasure craft in counties that are large as measured by population and are relatively affluent as measured by real per capita income.

The number of registered boats in any county is critical in assessing the adequacy of the boating infrastructure such as boat ramps and, of course, artificial and natural reefs. This topic has recently been addressed in the 2000 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreational Plan (2001) issued by the Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. However, this report did not include an assessment of the reef system in various regions of Florida. This chapter considers the demand for boating in Miami-Dade County, not the infrastructure available. This will give the reader an overview of Miami-Dade County and valuable information necessary to assess the adequacy of the boating infrastructure. The overview includes the size and nature of the county’s population, per capita income, industrial structure, and the infrastructure related to saltwater boating. This will provide a background by which to assess the results of this study.

Miami-Dade County is on the southeast coast of Florida bordering the Atlantic Ocean with Miami as its largest city. In 1999, the county had the largest in population in Florida with 2.13 million residents. Over the last ten years, population in this county grew by 9 percent making it the 66th fastest growing county in Florida (out of 67 counties). Miami-Dade County has 1,094 persons per square mile as compared to 284 for Florida as a whole, making it the fourth most densely populated county in the State. This county’s population has a median age of 35.9 years, which is comparable to the general population of Florida, which has a median age of 39 years.

The University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research projects the county’s population to reach 2.50 million by 2015 or an 18 percent increase from 1999. In-migration to Miami-Dade County, will account for about one-third of this growth. Thus, this county’s population growth will depend heavily on net birth rates. The absolute size of Miami-Dade County’s population coupled with its projected future growth makes this county a potentially large market for resident recreational boating along its coasts.

In 1998, Miami-Dade County had a per capita income of $23,919 placing it 21st among the 67 counties in the State of Florida. However, this per capita income was only 11 percent below the state average of $26,845. Although the average earnings from employment are about nine percent above the state average, Miami-Dade County residents have a very low flow of income from dividends, interests and rents. The net effect of these two factors is therefore a lowering of per capita income below the state average. This could indicate reduced demand for reef-related recreational boating.



In 1998, there were 1,041,257 persons employed generating $31.72 billion in wage and salaries in Miami-Dade County. Over the last ten years, employment grew by 11.7 percent, which corresponds to the rate of growth in population as discussed above. Measured by earnings of persons, the largest industries in 1998, were services (32.7 percent); state and local government (12.7 percent); and finance, insurance and real estate (11 percent). Of particular note, this county provides tourist-related services such as lodging, amusement and recreation. More than 35,000 workers were involved in these industries in Miami-Dade County in 1998. The attraction of tourists provides part of the economic base for this county.

In 2000, there were 68,082 recreational boats (FDHSMV, 2001) registered in Miami-Dade County or 1 boat for every 32 people. For the State of Florida, there is one registered pleasure boat for every 14 residents. The infrastructure supporting various coastal or saltwater forms of boating recreation in Miami-Dade County includes the following (FDEP, 2000)(Pybas, 1997):



3. Other Facilities: 3,082 boat dry storage;

4. Artificial Reefs: 105 artificial reefs ranging from .1 to 6.5 nautical miles from shore.

Despite the relatively large population in Miami-Dade County, the demand for recreational boating is less than the demand for boating throughout Florida as measured by the ratio of registered boats per person. The lower per capita income in this county would be a factor in lessening the demand for recreational boats. Additionally, the high population density, probably as in many of the Southeastern Florida counties, contributes to crowding and congestion, which impinges on the carrying capacity of both man-made facilities (e.g., artificial reefs; boat ramps) and natural resources. This increases the cost of recreational boating and reduces the demand for pleasure boats. This “working hypothesis” of a supply side problem could be one of several factors that may affect the demand for registered boats in Miami-Dade County.

Using a mail survey, 3,000 registered boaters in Miami-Dade County were contacted at random using the survey instrument provided in Appendix A. Boat owner addresses were obtained from a registered boater database compiled by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. A total of 552 registered boaters responded to the mail survey. From the responses to the mail survey, 68.5 percent (378) indicated that they used their pleasure crafts to visit the reefs offshore of Miami-Dade County during a 12-month period (December 1999 through November 2000). The results of the survey were used to estimate a total of 1.28 million person-days spent by residents of Miami-Dade County on artificial reefs in a 12-month period. This amounts to an average of 17,305 person-days per year for each reef or 47 persons per day. This, of course, does not include visitors from outside Miami-Dade County, which are discussed in the next section of this chapter.

To estimate the economic contribution of resident spending associated with reef use in the Miami-Dade County economy, the respondents were asked to estimate party spending during



their last boating activity. It was assumed that each boating trip would last one day because the residents are in their county of residence. Residential expenditures per party were distributed according to the categories of recreational activity as follows for Miami-Dade County residents:

Average Resident Spending Per Party for Miami-Dade County Reef-Users

Activity

Estimated Spending per Party per Day

Percentage of Residents per Party


per Day (1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) * (3)


Note that an adjustment was made to the size of the boating party in order to calculate estimated expenditures by residents as summarized above. About 13 to 20 percent of the typical party included individuals that were apparently guests of the Miami-Dade County residents. We made the simplifying assumption that these visitors would pay their fair share of the trip cost. Such visitors may contribute to boat fuel, restaurants and bait for example. We feel that the resident component probably pays for more than indicated above; however, we shall be very conservative and assume an equal sharing. Thus, resident spending is certainly not overstated and that is what we mean by being conservative in terms of the economic contribution.

Recreational fishing on reefs was most expensive and snorkeling the least expensive. Expenditures for marina fees, equipment rentals and restaurants made the former activity a more expensive recreational activity than the latter. Detailed expenditures on particular items will be discussed below while additional information and analysis is provided in the Technical Appendix to this report which is a separate document.

To derive the economic impact of a particular reef-related recreational activity, one must briefly return to Table 5.1.1-1. This table shows the number of resident party-days and person-days associated with reef use over a 12-month period off the Coast of Miami-Dade County. For example, recreational fishing generated 596,703 resident party-days to all reefs off Miami-Dade County. According to our resident spending per party discussed above, resident fishers spent $276.40 per trip. Thus, annual expenditures for reef-related fishing was estimated at $164.9 million dollars ($276.40 times 596,703).

Based upon the distribution of party-days per reef type, about $62.7 million was spent while using artificial reefs while the balance, or $102.2 million, was spent in conjunction with the use of natural reefs by recreational fishers. There did not appear to be much difference between party spending by fishers who used either type of reef. This held for the other two recreational activities as well.



Table 5.1.2-1 shows the economic contribution of all reef-related recreational pursuits off the Miami-Dade County coast. Residents spent an estimated $275.6 million during a 12-month period (1999-2000). About two-thirds of this was spent while using natural reefs ($180.4 million) while the balance ($95.2 million) was spent in conjunction with an artificial reef system. Nearly 60 percent of total spending or $165 million was spent on reef-related recreational fishing while $58.9 million (21 percent) was spent on reef-related snorkeling and $51.7 million (19 percent) was spent on reef-related scuba diving.

Table 5.1.2-1 (Residents) Reef-Related Expenditures, Wages and Employment Generated by Resident Boating Activities in Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2000


(Million $) Wages

(Million $)


Part-Time Jobs) Artificial Reef Fishing $62.70 $8.50 460 Snorkeling $16.50 $2.50 133 Scuba Diving $16.00 $2.40 131 Subtotal $95.20 $13.40 724 Percentage Attributed to Artificial Reefs 35% 35% 34% Natural Reef Fishing $102.30 $13.90 751 Snorkeling $42.40 $6.40 342 Scuba Diving $35.70 $5.20 292 Subtotal $180.40 $25.50 1,385 Percentage Attributable to Natural Reefs 65% 65% 66% Total All Reefs Fishing $165.00 $22.40 1,211 Snorkeling $58.90 $8.90 475 Scuba Diving $51.70 $7.60 423 Total All Reefs/All Activities $275.60 $38.90 2,109

It is important to clarify the economic contribution of resident boaters from Miami-Dade County. The engine of economic growth for any region is found in its export industries such as tourism in Miami-Dade County. As export income flows through the region, it creates local income (e.g., money paid for haircuts by residents) and a demand for imports (e.g., TV sets since Miami-Dade County does not have such a manufacturer). The local income is spent on everything from marina services to dining out at a local restaurant to buying groceries to pay the mortgage or rent.



Spending by residents in conjunction with reef use is local income, which represents the choice of recreating locally as opposed to leaving the area to recreate elsewhere.

The reef system keeps the “locals” in the county and enlarges the economy by $275.6 million in local spending. In contrast to visitors entering the county, there is no multiplier effect. Generally, money kept in the local economy enlarges the regional multiplier since there is less “leakage” through the purchase of imports or residents leaving the area for recreational pursuits in places such as Key West or Orlando. Just how much the regional multiplier is enlarged from resident use of the reef system is beyond the scope of this study. However, it is safe to say that protection and maintenance of the reef system has the potential to keep more business in Miami-Dade County. For ardent reef-users, the absence of reefs off the of Miami-Dade County coast would certainly divert more of these residents to counties north and south of this area to the economic detriment of Miami-Dade County.

Reef-related local spending discussed above is, in itself, only a vehicle to create jobs and wages in the local community. To evaluate which industries benefit from residential reef use, reef-users were asked to break their expenditures into 12 categories for items such as boat fuel, ice, tackle, and marina fees. For each of the twelve categories, resident expenditures were matched to total sales as published in the 1997 U.S. Census of Business (1997). For example, spending on boat fuel was matched up with sales at gasoline stations in Miami-Dade County. It was found that each gasoline station employee “sells” $325,761 per year out of which they are paid about $14,648 or about 4.5 percent. The annual salary may seem low, but this figure is for full and part time employees with a relatively low skill level. Thus, every $325,761 in gasoline purchased for reef-related recreation by local users, generates one job paying about $14,648 per year.

This rather simple procedure was followed for each of the 12 expenditure categories, which vary greatly in labor intensity. The higher the sales-to-employment ratio, the less labor intensive the activity. For example, restaurants are relatively labor intensive (i.e., need cooks and servers) while gasoline stations are highly automated and consequently need relatively fewer employees.

Table 5.1.2-1 shows the estimated wages and employment generated by resident spending on reef-related recreational activities in Miami-Dade County. The $275.6 million in annual spending generated about $38.9 million dollars in annual wages supporting 2,109 employees.

It is also important to look at what industries benefit from reef-related resident spending. Table 5.1.2-2 shows the 12 spending categories of resident boaters.



Table 5.1.2-2 (Residents) Detailed Expenditure Pattern Supporting Employment and Wages by All Resident Reef-Users in

Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2000


(Million $)

Percentage of Total

Expenditures


Part-Time Jobs)

Percentage of Total

Employment Wages

(Million $) Percentage

of Total Wages

1. Boat gas and oil $67.18 24% 207 10% $3.02 8% 2. Marina slip rentals and

dockage fees $52.84 19% 576 27% $13.74 35% 3. Food and beverages from

restaurants/bars $16.60 6% 402 19% $4.43 11% 4. Food and beverages from

stores $26.15 10% 198 9% $2.66 7% 5. Tackle $16.21 6% 89 4% $1.82 5% 6. Bait $19.30 7% 106 5% $2.17 5% 7. Gas for auto $15.96 6% 49 2% $0.72 2% 8. Ice $7.36 3% 23 1% $0.33 1% 9. Equipment rentals $6.74 3% 86 4% $2.13 5% 10. Boat ramp and parking fees $20.27 7% 221 11% $5.27 14% 11. Sundries (e.g. Sun screen,

sea sickness pills, etc.) $6.59 2% 38 2% $0.64 2% 12. All other $20.34 7% 118 6% $1.98 5% Total $275.54 100% 2,113 100% $38.91 100% Source: Florida State University



We would expect that expenditures would be concentrated on running and storing a boat and the results support this assumption. Expenditures on boat oil and gas constituted 24 percent of all spending followed by spending on marina slip rentals and dockage fees (19 percent) and food and beverages from restaurants (6 percent) and stores (10 percent). In terms of dollar figures, resident reef-uses spent about $53 million annually on the goods and services provided by the marina industry. According to the U.S. Census of Business (1997), the marina industry in Miami-Dade County grossed about $76 million in sales. Thus, resident reef-users may account for as much as 70 percent of these sales. Marina industry sales would also come from resident non-reef users and visitors keeping their boats in local marinas. The role of visitors will be discussed in the next section.

In terms of employment, reef-related resident spending created proportionately more employment in marinas and restaurants since, as discussed above, these industries are relatively labor intensive. Although ranked number one as a component of spending, gasoline stations provide a capital- intensive industry not conducive to the creation of jobs. That is, spending on boat oil and gas accounted for one-fourth of all spending, but only one in ten jobs. As might be expected, wages follow employment. That is, the higher the percentage of spending on labor intensive industries, the higher the total wages generated. However, some industrie s employ highly skilled persons such as marinas where the wages paid are proportionately higher than employment as indicated in Table 5.1.2-2.


Yet, the general public does pay for the deployment of artificial reefs and the protection of natural reefs. So, there must be some unmeasured value of providing the reef system to the general public. Because reef-users are attracted to the reefs for recreation, we call this unmeasured value “use value”. For example, one could engage in scuba diving without the benefit of a natural or artificial reef. The addition of a reef presumably adds some “value” to the scuba diver’s recreational experience. This section examines the incremental use value of having a reef system off the coast of Miami-Dade County.

The contingent valuation (CV) method asks users about their willingness to pay for a reef system contingent on specified conditions (e.g., use of funds for various reef related improvements). This CV method has been employed in numerous studies of use value from deep-sea fishing to deer hunting. 1 The reef-using respondents were asked a series of CV questions dealing with their 1 See Clawson and Knetch (1966).



willingness to pay for certain types of reef programs. The respondents were asked to consider the total cost for their last boating trip to the reefs including travel expenses, lodging, and all boating expenses. Then, the respondents were asked:

“If your total cost per trip would have been $______ higher, would you have been willing to pay this amount to maintain the (kind of reef – artificial, natural or both) in their existing condition.”


The above willingness to pay question was asked in three forms to each respondent: (l) natural reefs separately; (2) artificial reefs separately and (3) a combination of natural and artificial reefs. For the combined program, the rotated cost increase was doubled. Because the primary spending unit is the “party”, the willingness to pay response to an increase in trip cost was considered to be the willingness to pay of the entire party.

To estimate user values per party per trip (a day and a trip are equal for residents), the data for all counties were pooled. A logit model was used to estimate the per party per trip user values. The logit model tested for differences by county, activity, household income, age of respondent, years of boating experience in South Florida, race/ethnicity, sex, length of boat owned, and whether a member of a fishing or diving club.

Separate models were estimated for each of the four reef programs (e.g., natural reefs, existing artificial reefs, natural & artificial reefs combined and new artificial reefs). For the natural reefs, the existing artificial reefs and the combined programs, the only significant willingness-to-pay differences found were for those persons with income greater than $100,000. This group had a higher willingness to pay than the other reef users. There were no other differences found. The logit model did not produce different per party per trip values by county, and because party sizes were not significantly different by county, the estimated values per person-trip were also the same across counties for each of the reef valuation programs. The estimated per party per trip (day) values were $32.55 for the natural reefs, $11.31 for the artificial reefs and $12.94 for the combined program.

To estimate total annual use values for each county, we multiplied the number of party-days times the estimated use values per party per day. We then estimate the value per person-day by dividing the total annual use value by the total number of person-days. This normalized value per person-day can be compared with results from other studies.

The results are consistent with the idea that natural reefs are preferred to artificial reefs. For Miami-Dade County residents, the average per person-day value of the natural reefs was $8.01



versus $2.76 for artificial reefs. Total use is also higher for natural versus artificial reefs. Miami-Dade County residents’ natural reef use was over 2.9 million person-days versus about 1.5 million person-days for artificial reefs. This translated into an estimate of total annual use value of over $23.74 million for natural reefs and $4.25 million for artificial reefs. Capitalizing the annual use values, using a three percent interest rate, yields asset values of over $791 million for the natural reefs and almost $142 million for the artificial reefs. All of these results are summarized in Table 5.1.3-1.

Annual use value represents the annual flow of total use value (i.e., the recreational benefits) to the reef-using public. From a public policy point of view, government spends money on the protection and management of the valuable resources of the natural and artificial reefs such as deploying of new artificial reefs and enhancing natural reefs. In addition, government entities incur variable costs each year to support marine patrol, biologists, planners and even contracts with economists to help carry out the mission of protecting the existing reef system. These costs can be compared with the annual flow of total use value of the reef to determine if this is indeed a wise investment.


Measuring the economic benefits of natural reef systems to policy makers is useful to justify public budgets for natural reef programs. If protected, the use value for natural reefs will flow into perpetuity. Using a real discount rate of 3 percent, the capitalized value of the natural reefs off the Miami-Dade coast was estimated at $791 million. Why is this important? Natural reef systems are not privately owned, but are common property resources. If a region or a nation is preparing a balance sheet showing its assets and liabilities, the asset value of the natural reef system would need to be included. This analysis provides an estimate of the capitalized value of the natural reef system to reef users, which is an asset to the residents of Miami-Dade County. Bear in mind that this value only includes the value that reef users place on the reefs and does not include the values that non-reef-users place on the reefs or the economic contribution of the reefs. The estimation of the value of the reefs to non-reef users was not part of this study.

In addition, asset value comes into play when there is an environmental disaster such as an oil or hazardous waste spill. If the polluter destroyed for the foreseeable future 20 percent of the natural reef system off the Miami-Dade coastline, then the government could ask for $158.2 million (i.e., 0.20 times $791 million) in compensatory damage. An example of this problem is in the Florida Keys, where ships that destroy natural reefs are required to pay the loss of use value as a result of legal proceedings. Numbers provided here are quite real and useful especially in the case of environmental damage assessment.




Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2000

Reef Type/Activity

Person-days

(millions)

Annual User Value

(Millions $)


($)

Asset Value at 3%

(Millions $) Natural Reefs 2.965 $23.74 $8.01 $791.3 Snorkeling 0.885 $6.73 $7.61 $224.4 Scuba Diving 0.482 $4.96 $10.30 $165.5 Fishing 1.598 $12.04 $7.53 $401.4 Artificial Reefs 1.540 $4.25 $2.76 $141.6 Snorkeling 0.344 $0.91 $2.64 $30.3 Scuba Diving 0.216 $0.77 $3.58 $25.8 Fishing 0.980 $2.56 $2.62 $85.5 Natural & Artificial Reefs 4.506 $14.30 $3.17 $476.6 Snorkeling 1.230 $3.72 $3.02 $123.9 Scuba Diving 0.698 $2.86 $4.09 $95.3 Fishing 2.578 $7.72 $3.00 $257.4 New Artificial Reefs 1.540 $0.44 $0.28 $14.5 Snorkeling 0.344 $0.16 $0.46 $5.3 Scuba Diving 0.216 $0.13 $0.62 $4.5 Fishing 0.980 $0.14 $0.15 $4.8

As discussed above, artificial reefs have a use value per person less than that of natural reefs, as one would expect. However, preservation of the existing artificial reef system of the Miami-Dade County coastline produces an annual use value of over $4.25 million. Again, this is for the maintenance of these reefs. The capitalized value of the artificial reef system off the Miami-Dade County coastline is estimated as $141.6 million. If users were obstructed from getting to Miami-Dade County’s artificial reefs, an estimate of damages to the reef users would be either the annual use value lost if users are temporarily obstructed or the capitalized value if users were permanently cut-off from using the artificial reefs.

The logit model estimated for the new artificial reef program found some statistically significant differences in willingness-to-pay depending on county, activity and income. Those from Palm Beach and Broward counties had higher willingness to pay than those from Miami-Dade and Monroe counties. Snorkelers and scuba divers had higher values than those who participated in fishing activities. The only other statistically significant variable was household income. As household income levels increased so did willingness-to-pay for new artificial reefs. On a per party per day basis, the estimated values ranged from a high of $1.97 for snorkelers and scuba



divers from Miami-Dade County to a low of $0.63 for those who participated in fishing activities off Miami-Dade County.

As with the other three programs, the estimated per party per day values were multiplied by the total party-days spent on artificial reefs by artificial reefs users in the county to get total annual use value for the county. The total annual use values were then divided by the total annual person-days of artificial reef use in the county to get an estimate of the value per person-day. Again, this normalized value per person-day can be compared with results from other studies.

On a per person-day basis, the estimated values ranged from a low of $0.15 for those fishing to a high of $0.62 for those that participated in scuba diving off Miami-Dade County. Across all activities, the average was 28 cents per person-day.

In terms of total annual use value, fishers have the highest value for new artificial reefs. Even though total snorkeling person-days was much lower than the number of person-days of fishing, snorkeling’s relatively higher value per person-day results in higher total annual use value for snorkeling than for fishing. Across all activities, total annual user value is about $440 thousand with an asset value of $14.5 million.

The relatively low marginal willingness to pay of $0.28 per person-day for artificial reef expansion in comparison to artificial reef maintenance discussed above is somewhat expected. If present users do not feel that congestion on artificial reefs is a problem, they would be expected to value expansion lower than maintenance of the existing artificial reefs. However, their willingness to pay anything for expansion demonstrates some level of unhappiness with the existing number of artificial reefs off the Miami-Dade County coastline. Perhaps, residents are competing with visitors for choice spots or just getting in the way of fishing and diving when arriving at an artificial reef.

5.1.4 Role of “No-Take” Zones Both the economic contribution and the use value of the reef system are based upon the management of these resources or lack thereof. For example, there have been controversies about the wisdom of deploying artificial reefs. Opponents argue that this encourages over fishing since artificial reefs tend to concentrate fish in a smaller number of places and they become easier targets for fishers. Others find that artificial reefs serve as added habitats and thereby increase the overall biomass available to fishers. The study of artificial reefs in northwest Florida (Bell, et al., 1999) found that most people fell into the latter group believing that the pie got larger with the deployment of more reefs. However, other studies such as Bohnsack et al., (1997) and Grossman et al., (1997) report results that support opinions of opponents regarding additional artificial reef systems.

In this section, we examine ”no take” zones in the Florida Keys and other counties in southeast Florida. “No-take” zones are defined as areas where reef-users can visit but nothing can be removed from an artificial or natural reef area. The existing reef system is coming under increased pressure to yield stable catch rates for fishing and a pristine environment for snorkeling



and scuba diving. Also, the reefs play a vital role in the entire oceanic ecosystem by providing habitat and protection for young fish and other creatures. To provide a net benefit, it is argued that “no-take” zones would actually increase recreational benefits even though takings would be banned in certain areas.

Supporters of “no-take” zones point to the overuse of common property resources such as ocean fishing both by recreational and commercial interests. In effect, “no-take” zones would vest the property right with the government. Although the carrying capacity of a reef system is not evaluated in this study, the concept has widespread validity. This concept has been examined by many natural resource economists with the finding that congestion and declining yields of fish created a decline of use value per day. 2 Bell (1992) found that tourists visiting Florida would go elsewhere if fishery catch rates declined to a certain point from the existing level. No one knows exactly where and to what degree “no-take” zones must be employed to increase the net benefit available to recreational interests. Like the deployment of artificial reefs, “no-take” zones have become a controversial issue. Therefore, as part of this study, respondents were asked for their opinion of using “no-take” zones as a management tool for artificial and natural reefs in southeast Florida.

In each of the four counties, reef-users were asked questions regarding “no-take” zones. The results for Miami-Dade County are summarized in Table 5.1.4-1. In 1997, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary created 23 areas or zones (13.37 square miles) in which the taking of anything including fish and shellfish is prohibited. It is reasonable to believe that residents of Miami-Dade County may have formed an opinion about this management effort and indeed, about three-quarters of the Miami-Dade County respondents supported this experimental management effort in the Keys. The “not in my backyard view” was tested so respondents were asked for their opinions on “no take” zones in Miami-Dade County. About 60 percent of the respondents were willing to have “no take” zones off the shore of their county. Respondents were also willing to extend this concept northward through Broward and Palm Beach Counties with nearly 64 percent supporting this expansion according to the results shown in Table 5.1.4-1.

2 See Green (1984) and Bell (1992).



Table 5.1.4-1 (Residents) Opinion of Miami-Dade County Residents on "No Take" Zones for Artificial and Natural Reefs, 2000

Survey Question

Percentage of Respondents Answering

"Yes"


"No"


"Don't Know" Sample

Size (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Support "NO TAKE" Zones in for some reefs in the Florida Keys 74% 19% 7% 374

Support "NO TAKE" Zones on some reefs off shore of Miami-Dade County

61% 28% 11% 374

Support "NO TAKE" Zones on some reefs off shore of Palm Beach and, Broward Counties Plus the Keys

64% 24% 12% 374

Average for

All Response Median of

All Responses

What Percent of Natural Reefs in Palm Beach County Should be Protected with "NO TAKE" Zones

30% 20% 374



Finally, respondents were asked for their opinion regarding the percent of the reef system that should be included in “no take” zones. Targeting only natural reefs, respondents indicated, on average, they would be willing to extend this management tool to almost 30 percent of the natural reefs off the Miami-Dade County shore. Since the average may be skewed by exceptionally high answers, the median percent of natural reefs respondents felt might be managed by the use of “no-take” zones was also reviewed. The median, or the midpoint between the highest and lowest answer was 20 percent.

Given the short experience of the Keys “no-take” zones, it was remarkable that present reef-users would be willing to establish “no take” zones in their county. Combined with the results from the Florida Keys, these statistics indicate a willingness to support management efforts in the direction of “no-take” zones. Such results are important to public officials in charge of managing the natural reef system off the Miami-Dade County coast.

5.1.5 Demographic Information The mail survey administered to Miami-Dade residents included questions regarding demographic characteristics. The reason for collecting such information was to determine what segment of the population would gain from protecting and maintaining artificial and natural reefs and/or designating “no-take” zones as discussed in the previous section. Respondents were asked to provide some background on both themselves and their boating experiences. Thus, the survey was used to collect demographic information as well develop a boater profile to better understand these people called “reef-users” in Miami-Dade County. Table 5.1.5-1 presents the results from the mail survey combined with comparable information on the entire Miami-Dade County population.

The owners of reef-using registered boats were significantly older than the general population of Miami-Dade. The median age of reef-users is 46 years compared to 35.9 years for the general population. Statistically speaking, there is real age difference between these two groups. Further, boating appears to be a male-dominated activity as over 93 percent of the respondents indicated they were male compared to 48 percent in the general population. Of course, there is no foolproof way to control who completes the survey instrument once it reaches the boat owner’s residence. However, the survey is directed at the person to whom the boat was registered.

With respect to race, white individuals in Miami-Dade County dominate boat ownership. About 88 percent of the respondents characterized themselves as white compared to 70 percent in the general population of Miami-Dade County.



Table 5.1.5-1 (Residents) Demographic Characteristics and Boater Profile of

Reef-Users in Miami-Dade County Florida, 2000 Demographic Characteristics of

Respondents to Mail Survey Reef-Users Miami-Dade County

Population Median Age 46 35.9 Sex

Male 93% 48% Female 7% 52%

Race White 88% 70% Black/African American 1% 20% Hispanic/Latino 32% 57% Other 11% 10% Education 1 Percentage that completed College Degree or More 57% 12%

Median Household Income $69,722 $36,846 Boater Profile Average Years of Residence in Miami-Dade County 33 N/A

Average Years of Boating in South Florida 25 N/A Average Length of Boat Used for Saltwater Activities (ft) 23 N/A

Percentage of Respondents that belong to fishing and/or diving clubs 19% N/A

Sample Size 390 1 Latest year that educational level attained by county is available is for 1990 from the U.S. Census Bureau. Source: Florida State University and the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1990, 2000).

Further, a lesser percentage characterized themselves as Hispanic/Latino (32.3 percent) as compared to the general population (57.3 percent).

Nearly 57 percent of the respondents indicated that they had at least a college degree compared to 12 percent for the general population in 1990.3 The education level of the general population is probably much higher today than ten years ago, but may not reach the levels reported by the respondents.

3 The U.S. Census has not yet released the educational levels for counties as part of the 2000 Census.



Since education and income are positively correlated, it is expected that the median household income reported by reef-users would be higher than the general population. This is indeed the case as confirmed by the last demographic statistic in Table 5.1.5-1 where respondents reported a median household income of nearly $69,722 compared to $36,846 for the general population. Of course, the purchase of a relatively large pleasure craft is also associated with higher income as found by Bell and Leeworthy (1986) and was discussed earlier in this chapter. So, this finding is not unusual.

Using the information gathered from the first section on user activity, it is estimated that a minimum of 120,325 residents engaged in reef-using recreational activity in a 12-month period (1999-2000) in Miami-Dade County. This number was obtained by multiplying the number of registered boats that were estimated to be involved in reef use (30,695) by the average number of residents per party (3.92 individuals). Because the turnover rate of the party is unknown, the term “minimum” is used. That is because the same residents may not go on every boat outing. There are about 1.7 million residents in Miami-Dade County who are over 14 years of age (i.e. about that age at which they could become boaters). The boating population that uses the reef system constitutes a minimum of 7.24 percent of the county’s population (120,325/1,660,955). The boating population that uses the reef system would probably be higher if the party turnover rate (i.e. different individuals on each boat outing) were considered. The information presented here provides some insight on the segments of the Miami-Dade County population that are being served by artificial and natural reefs off its coast. This should be valuable information for policy makers at the local and state levels.

Finally, a boater profile for Miami-Dade was developed from the survey results. The typical reef-using boater has lived in Miami-Dade for 33 years and boated for 25 years. The reef-using boaters in our sample own a pleasure craft of 23 feet in length, on average. The weighted average of registered boats 16 feet and over in Miami-Dade County is about 25 feet so it appears that the sample is particularly reflective of the population based on average boat length. About 19 percent of the respondents were members of fishing and/or diving clubs. This indicator provides some idea of the intensity and degree of interest in recreational fishing, snorkeling and scuba diving off the coast of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

5.2 Visitors The focus of this section is the socioeconomic value of the reefs associated with visitors to Miami-Dade County. As defined in Chapter 1, Introduction, visitors to a county are defined as nonresidents of the county that they are visiting. For example, a person from Broward County visiting Miami-Dade County is considered to be a visitor to Miami-Dade County. Likewise, a person from New York visiting Miami-Dade County is considered to be a visitor to Miami-Dade County.

This section provides the following values regarding visitors to Miami-Dade County: reef user activity, economic contribution of the reefs, use value of the reefs and demographic information. Detailed explanations of the methods and data used to estimated these values for Miami-Dade



County are provided in Chapter 1: Introduction and Chapter 2: Socioeconomic Values of Reefs in Southeast Florida.

5.2.1 User Activity The activity of reef users is summarized in person-days of reef use. For visitors, the number of person-trips to use the reefs is also of interest. In order to measure person-days and person-trips associated with reef use, the total number of person-trips by all visitors to Miami-Dade County must be estimated. Total visitation includes visits to Miami-Dade County by non-residents of Miami-Dade County to participate in any activity be it recreation, business or family matters. The total number of person-trips by all visitors to the county was estimated using the Capacity Utilization Model. This model uses a variety of information obtained from the counties and the responses to the General Visitor Survey. The number of person-trips was then converted to the number of person-days spent by all visitors to Miami-Dade County using information from the General Visitor Survey.

The number of person-trips taken by all visitors to Miami-Dade County and the number of person-days these visitors spent in the county during the year 2000-2001 was developed in Chapter 2 and is summarized in Table 5.2.1-1.


All Visitors to Miami-Dade County June 2000 to May 2001 – in millions

Measure of Visitation Summer – 00 Winter – 01 Total

Number of Person-Trips 6.57 6.04 12.61 Number of Person-Days 44.19 56.43 100.62 Note: Summer 2000 is from June 2000 to November 2000. Winter 2001 is from December 2000 to May 2001.

Visitors took 12.6 million person-trips to Miami-Dade County from June 2000 to May 2001 and spent 101 million person-days in the county.


To estimate the number of boating person-trips when the person used the reefs, the number of boating person-trips was multiplied by the proportion of boating person-trips when the



respondent used the reefs. This proportion was obtained from the Visitor Boater Screening Tally sheets. These sheets indicated the proportion of boaters intercepted who used the reefs at least once in the past 12 months. The results for the summer, winter and the year are summarized in Tables 5.2.1-2.


And Visitors Who Used the Reefs in Miami-Dade County Over the Past 12 Months

Season

Total Person- Trips to


Proportion of Person-Trips


Boateda

Boating Person-

Trips

Proportion of Boating Person- Trips When the

Reef was Used for Recreationb

Boating Person- Trips When the Reef was Used for Recreation

Summer - June 2000 to Nov. 2001 6,574,428 0.28 1,843,418 0.91 1,682,421

Winter – December 2000 to May 2001 6,039,217 0.13 768,919 0.91 701,764

Year Round - June 2000 to May 2001 12,613,645 2,612,337 2,384,185 a Saltwater Boating Only. From General Visitor Survey Answer to Question 13 (Which activities_modes did you participate in

over the past 12 months in this county). The proportion is equal to the number of respondents who participated in at least one boating activity divided by total number of respondents to the General Visitor Survey.


Of the 12.6 million person-trips visitors took to Miami-Dade County from June 2000 to May 2001, 28 percent of the trips involved saltwater boating activities in the summer and 13 percent involved saltwater boating activities in the winter. Of the resulting 2.6 million boating person-trips by visitors to Miami-Dade County, 91 percent of those trips involved recreational reef use. Thus, visitors who used the reefs for recreation in Miami-Dade County made about 2.4 million person-trips to the county from June 2000 to May 2001.

Next, the total number of person-days that visitor boaters who used the reefs spent visiting the county was estimated. This estimate is the total boating person-trips when reefs were used times the average days per visit by boaters who use the reefs. The average days per visit by boaters who used the reefs was obtained from Question 10 of the Visitor Boater Survey (How many nights are you spending on this trip?) where each response was increased by one unit to convert nights to days. The average number of days and the total person days reef users spent in Miami-Dade County in 2000-2001 are provided in Table 5.2.1-3.



Table 5.2.1-3 (Visitors) Average Number of Days Visiting Miami-Dade County

And Total Person-Days in Miami-Dade County By Visitor Boaters Who Used the Reefs




Miami-Dade 7.58 18,068,870

Reef-using boaters who visited Miami-Dade County spent an average of 7.58 days in the county during their trip. As a result, these visitors spent 18.1 million person-days in Miami-Dade County from June 2000 to May 2001.

To allocate the total person days spent visiting the county to actual days using the artificial and natural reefs, the daily participation rates of the different boating activities were calculated using the responses to Questions 12, 15, 16 and 17 of the Visitor Boater Survey. Participation rate is the proportion of total days that respondents spent in the county in the last 12 months when the respondent actually participated in a saltwater activity and boat mode. It represents the probability that a visitor boater who uses the reefs will participate in a particular saltwater boating activity and boating mode on any given day.

Question 12 asked the respondent to examine a list of saltwater boating activities and boat modes and read the number corresponding to the activity-boat mode that he/she or someone in his/her party participated in over the past 12 months. The saltwater activity-boat mode list is provided in Appendix B with the Visitor Boater Survey. Question 13 asked if the respondent participated in the activity and boating mode. Question 15 asked how many days in the past 12 months that the respondent participated in the activity-boat mode. From the responses to these questions, the proportions of total visiting days respondents actually spent participating in the activity_boat mode were obtained.

To allocate the total number of days in an activity-boat mode to the use of artificial reefs versus natural reefs versus no reefs, the proportion of fishing days and the proportion of dives spent on each reef/no reef was calculated from the Visitor Boater Survey responses. Question 16 asked the respondent how many days he/she spent on the artificial reef and Question 17 asked the respondent how many days he/she spent on the natural reef. For scuba divers and snorkelers, Question 18 asked for the total number of dives and Questions 19 and 20 asked for the number of dives on artificial versus natural reefs. A dive is defined as exiting and reentering the boat and applies to both divers and snorkelers. From the responses to these questions, the proportions of fishing days spent on the artificial and natural reefs and the proportions of dives spent on the artificial and natural reefs were obtained. For fishing charter and fishing party boats, the proportions of days spent on artificial versus natural versus no reefs were taken from the fishing-related responses to the charter/party boat operator survey those operators who provide services in Miami-Dade County.



The proportion of visitor days that visitor boaters who use the reefs participated in fishing and diving/snorkeling and the proportion of fishing days and scuba/snorkeling dives that visitor boaters spent on the artificial, natural and no reefs for Miami-Dade County are presented in Table 5.2.1-4.

Table 5.2.1-4 (Visitors) Percent of Visitor Person-Days That Reef-Using Boaters


From Visitor Boater Survey Miami-Dade County


Activity Total

Respondents


Days Artificial

Reefs Natural Reefs

No Reefs

Sum of Percentages

Fishinga 339 22% 24% 61% 15% 100% Scuba Diving/Snorkelingb

339 8% 32% 65% 3% 100% a Percent of fishing days on each reef type is reported. b Percent of dives on each reef type is reported. A dive is a boat exit and re-entry. Note: Boating Modes are Charter, Party, Rental, and Private (Own or Friend’s) Boat. Visitor boaters who came to Miami-Dade County to use the reefs spent 22 percent of their visiting days participating in saltwater fishing from either a charter, party, rental or private boat. Of these fishing days, 24 percent of days were spent fishing near artificial reefs, 61 percent of days were spent fishing near natural reefs and 15 percent of days were spent fishing near no reefs. Also, visitor boaters who came to the county to use the reefs spent 8 percent of their visiting days scuba diving or snorkeling. Of these diving/snorkeling days, 32 percent of dives were spent on artificial reefs, 65 percent of dives were spent on natural reefs, and 3 percent of dives were spent on no reefs.

The number of person-days spent in each saltwater boating activity_boat mode was estimated as the total person-days reef-using boaters spent visiting the county in year 2000-2001 (from Table 5.2.1-3) times the proportion visitor days that these visitors spent participating in each activity_boat mode. Then the number of person-days spent in each saltwater boating activity_boat mode was allocated to artificial and natural reefs based on either the proportion of days or the proportion of dives spent in that activity_boat mode on or near artificial versus natural reefs. Proportion of days was used for all activities except scuba diving and snorkeling where the proportion of dives was used to provide a more accurate indicator of reef use.

A summary of the total person-days visitors spent participating in reef-related recreation by type of activity and by type of reef in Miami-Dade County is provided in Table 5.2.1-5. The total person-days visitors spent participating in each saltwater activity and boat mode by type of reef is provided in Table 5.2.1-6.



Visitors to Miami-Dade County spent about 4.7 million person-days on the reef system from June 2000 to May 2001. About 1.4 million of these days were spent on artificial reefs and about 3.2 million of these days were spent on natural reefs.


By Recreation Activity – Miami-Dade County Number of Person-Days in millions

Activity Artificial Reefs Natural Reefs All Reefs Snorkeling 0.28 0.60 0.88 Scuba Diving 0.17 0.27 0.44 Fishing 0.96 2.36 3.32 Glass Bottom Boat Sightseeing 0.003 0.014 0.017 Total 1.413 3.244 4.66


The average itemized per person expenditures by those who participated in each activity and boat mode in Miami-Dade County are provided in Table 5.2.2-1. Miami-Dade County reef-using visitors who went saltwater fishing on their own boat, a friend’s boat or a rental boat spent, on average, $114 per person per day on the day that they went fishing. This amount is comprised of $38 for boat fuel, $21 for food and beverages at stores and $15 for food and beverages at restaurants and bars and $8 for auto rental, among other items.



Table 5.2.1-6 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Visitors Spent Participating in Saltwater Boating Activities

and Reef Use - June 2000 to May 2001 Miami-Dade County


Activity Boat Mode

Number of Person


Natural Reefs

No Reefs

Charter/Party 144,205 51,231 79,692 13,282 Rental 0 0 0 0 Snorkeling Private 751,307 230,116 519,667 1,524 Charter/Party 142,763 25,318 102,677 14,769 Rental 0 0 0 0 Scuba Diving Private 311,483 143,347 168,136 0 Charter 288,410 93,657 114,974 79,778 Party 501,833 162,964 200,056 138,814 Rental 347,534 139,013 208,520 0


Private 1,455,027 318,640 817,748 318,640 Charter/Party 1,442 0 0 1,442 Rental 0 0 0 0


Private 637,386 59,393 538,880 39,112 Charter 18,747 6,088 7,473 5,186 Party 233,612 75,862 93,129 64,620 Rental 0 0 0 0

Fishing Bottom

Private 501,833 103,684 382,941 15,207 Glass Bottom Boat 18,747 3,124 14,060 1,562 Back Country Excursion 0 0 0 0 Rental 2,884 0 0 2,884








Participating in Each Reef-Related Activity and Boating Mode Miami-Dade County



Item

Own, Friend's or


Boat Party Boat





Auto Gas $6.17 $6.98 $8.01 $7.45 $4.54 Auto Rental $8.25 $15.72 $22.16 $1.47 $14.79 Equipment Rental $1.13 $0.00 $2.18 $1.65 $1.56 Shopping $11.61 $30.10 $36.86 $4.26 $19.45 Total $114.17 $224.90 $194.24 $87.42 $125.30 Number of Respondents 89 71 69 47 76 Number of Respondents and Party Membersc 289 228 186 147 291 a Expenditures per person per day were estimated from the responses to the Visitor Boater Survey. For each Activity_Mode, the






The average expenditure of persons who fished on charter boats was $225 per person per day. About $75 was the cost of the charter boat while $46 was spent on lodging, $16 was spent on food and beverages at stores, $34 was spent on food and beverages at restaurants and bars, $16 was spent on auto rental, and $30 was spent on shopping.

Persons who fished on party boats spent, on average, $194 per person on the day they went fishing which included $30 for the party boat fee, $40 for lodging, $14 for food and beverages at stores, $40 for food and beverages at restaurants and bars, $22 for auto rental and $37 for shopping.

Miami-Dade County reef-using visitors who went scuba diving or snorkeling on their own boat, a friend’s boat or a rental boat spent, on average, $87 per person per day on the day they went diving. This amount is comprised of $17 for boat fuel, $4 for lodging, $17 for food and beverages at stores and $11 for food and beverages at restaurants and bars.

Visitors who went diving on charter or party boats spent, on average, $125 per person per day. This expenditure was comprised of $31 per day for the dive charter or party boat, $20 per day for lodging and $7 per day for food and beverages at stores, $22 per day for food and beverages in restaurants and bars; $15 for auto rental; and $19 for shopping, among other items.

The lodging expenditure item includes lodging costs for hotels, motels and campgrounds or if the respondent paid by the day or by the week for the other accommodations. The $20 per person per day for lodging may seem lower than the actual per person rate of a hotel or motel. Bear in mind that only a portion of visitors stay at a hotel or motel. Visitor accommodations also include campgrounds, family or friends, second homes and time shares. Also, as discussed previously, many visitors spend only one day in the county and therefore do not incur the cost of a room. The cost of the second home or time share is not included in the lodging cost because this is a monthly or up front cost that can, at best, only be partially due to the existence of the reefs.

The expenditures per person per day were multiplied by the number of person-days by boating mode and reef type to obtain an estimate of the total expenditures associated with reef related activities. The itemized total expenditures associated with reef use in Miami-Dade County in 2000-2001 are provided in Table 5.2.2-2. The expenditures associated with glass bottom boating days only included the fee per person per ride ($20). The other expenditures associated with the entire day spent in the county were not included for glass bottom boat riders because these visitors are likely in the county for other reasons either not reef-related or included in the other reef-related recreational activities.

Visitors who used the reefs in Miami-Dade County spent $572 million on reef-related expenditures. Of this amount $182 million was associated with artificial reef-related expenditures and $390 million was associated with natural reef-related expenditures.



Table 5.2.2-2 (Visitors) Total Visitor Expenditures In Miami-Dade County Associated with Reef Use


Item Artificial Reef Natural Reef Total Total Number of Person Days 1,412,438 3,247,954 4,660,392 Charter / Party Boat Fee $17,118,148 $23,710,254 $40,828,402 Boat Rental 2,540,565 4,678,931 7,219,496 Boat Fuel 30,156,338 86,350,800 116,507,138 Air Refills 2,538,890 4,760,334 7,299,223 Tackle 2,932,339 9,202,805 12,135,144 Bait 1,570,737 4,929,575 6,500,312 Ice 2,035,146 5,381,221 7,416,367 Ramp Fees 1,782,445 4,834,576 6,617,021 Marina Fees 3,496,104 7,559,320 11,055,423 Lodging 17,096,751 23,592,903 40,689,654 Camping Fees 651,817 1,602,569 2,254,386 Food and Beverages - Stores 24,957,770 60,274,523 85,232,293 Food and Beverages - Restaurants/Bars 27,777,276 55,785,655 83,562,932 Auto Gas 9,568,144 21,174,183 30,742,328 Auto Rental 13,659,366 28,193,581 41,852,947 Equipment Rental 1,958,101 4,261,687 6,219,788 Shopping 22,089,926 43,581,942 65,671,868 Glass Bottom Boat Ride 62,489 281,199 343,688 Total $181,992,354 $390,156,057 $572,148,411

The reef-related visitor expenditures were then used to estimate the economic contribution of artificial and natural reefs to each of the counties. As discussed in the Introduction of the Report, expenditures by visitors generate income and jobs within the industries that supply reef-related goods and services, such as charter / party boat operations, restaurants and hotels. These industries are called direct industries. In addition, these expenditures create multiplier effects wherein additional income and employment is created as the income earned by the reef-related industries is re-spent within the county. These additional effects of reef-related expenditures are called indirect and induced. Indirect effects are generated as the reef-related industries purchase goods and services from other industries in the county. Induced effects are created when the employees of the direct and indirect industries spend their money in the county.

The direct, indirect and induced increase in sales, total income, employment and indirect business taxes generated by the reef-related expenditures were estimated for Miami-Dade



County using the IMPLAN Regional Input-Output Model. This model uses detailed data on the economies of this county to estimate economic multipliers and to model the impact of reef-related expenditures on the economy.

The economic contribution of the reefs to Miami-Dade County is provided in Table 5.2.2-3. The sales contribution is defined as the value of the additional output produced in the county due to the reef-related expenditures. The total income contribution is defined as the sum of employee compensation, proprietor’s income, interest, rents, and profits generated as a result of the reef-related expenditures. Income is the money that stays in the county’s economy. The employment contribution is the number of full- time and part-time jobs created due to the reef-related expenditures. The indirect business tax contribution is the sum of the additional excise taxes, property taxes, fees, licenses, and sales taxes collected due to the reef-related expenditures.

Table 5.2.2-3 (Visitors) Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Expenditures by Visitors to Miami-Dade County

Economic Area is Miami-Dade County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars

Reef Type/Economic Contribution Direct Indirect Induced Total Artificial Reefs Sales $181,992,354 $50,373,237 $91,522,054 $323,887,645 Total Income $98,068,036 $26,955,522 $56,811,301 $181,834,859 Employment 3,532 520 1,214 5,266 Indirect Business Taxes $18,462,677 $2,954,424 $5,467,652 $26,884,753 Natural Reefs Sales $390,156,057 $106,631,671 $200,284,701 $697,072,429 Total Income $211,942,283 $56,642,529 $124,502,414 $393,087,226 Employment 7,462 1,087 2,662 11,211 Indirect Business Taxes $41,647,111 $6,178,534 $11,923,603 $59,749,248 Natural and Artificial Reefs Sales $572,148,411 $157,004,908 $291,806,755 $1,020,960,074 Total Income $310,010,319 $83,598,051 $181,313,715 $574,922,085 Employment 10,994 1,607 3,876 16,477 Indirect Business Taxes $60,109,788 $9,132,958 $17,391,255 $86,634,001

Reef-related expenditures by visitors to Miami-Dade County during the period June 2000 to May 2001 resulted in $1.0 billion in sales to county businesses. These sales generated $575 million in income and 17,000 jobs. About $87 million in indirect business taxes were collected as a result. About 32 percent of these values were the result of artificial reef-related expenditures and 68 percent of these values were the result of natural reef-related expenditures.

5.2.3 Use Value Use value is the maximum amount of money that reef users are willing to pay to maintain the reefs in their existing condition and to add more artificial reefs to the system. In this study, four types of use values were estimated: (1) the value to natural reef users of maintaining the natural



reefs in their existing condition; (2) the value to artificial reef users of maintaining the artificial reefs in their existing condition; (3) the value to all reef users of maintaining both the artificial and natural reefs in their existing condition; and (4) the value of adding and maintaining additional artificial reefs. Use value is presented in terms of per person per day of reef use and in aggregate for all users of the reef system.

The visitor reef-user values associated with maintaining the reefs in their existing conditions for each county is provided in Table 5.2.3-1. Use value per person day means the value per person day of artificial, natural or all reef use, as specified in the table. The respondent was asked to state yes, no or don’t know to a specified payment to maintain the artificial reefs, the natural reefs and a combined program that would protect both types of reefs. The scenario provided to the respondent was as follows.



Then the respondent was asked a yes or no question regarding the natural reef plan, the artificial reef plan and both plans. For example, the question regarding both plans read: “Suppose that both of the above plans to maintain the natural and artificial reefs in southeast Florida were put together in a combined program. Consider once again your total trip cost fo r your last trip to use the reefs in southeast Florida including travel expenses, lodging, and all boating expenses. If your total costs for this trip would have been $_____ higher, would you be willing to pay this amount to maintain the artificial and na tural reefs?”





Chapter 2.2.2 provides a general description of the procedures used to analyze the data and the procedures used to estimate the user values presented here. For a more technical discussion, please see the Technical Appendix to this document which is a separate report. The Technical Appendix describes the methods used to derive the values presented here and provides alternative estimates using different methods. Here we present only the estimates of total annual use value, use value per person-day, and the asset value of the reefs derived using the logit model.

The results are consistent with the idea that natural reefs are preferred to artificial reefs. For Miami-Dade County visitors, the average per person-day value of the natural reefs was $7.09 versus $4.31 for artificial reefs. Total use is also higher for natural versus artificial reefs. Miami-Dade County visitors’ natural reef use was over 3.2 million person-days versus 1.4 million person-days for artificial reefs. This translated into an estimate of total annual use value of over $23 million for natural reefs and $6 million for artificial reefs. Capitalizing the annual use values, using a three percent discount rate, yields asset values of $767 million for the natural reefs and $203 million for the artificial reefs.

Annual use value represents the annual flow of total use value (i.e., the recreational benefits) to the reef-using public. From a public policy point of view, government spends money on the protection and management of the valuable resources of the natural and artificial reefs including investments to deploy new artificial reefs and enhance natural reefs. In addition, government entities incur variable costs each year to support marine patrol, biologists, planners and even contracts with economists to help carry out the mission of protecting the existing reef system. These costs can be compared with the annual flow of total use value of the reef to determine if this is indeed a wise investment.

The question combining the natural and artificial reef programs yielded estimates of value slightly higher than that derived by adding-up the values of the natural and artificial reef programs separately. This result is quite different that what was obtained for other counties, where the result of the combined programs yielded estimates lower than that derived by adding-up the separate programs. 4 For a complete description of the contingent valuation questions, please refer to the Visitor Boater Survey




The capitalized value of the reef user values is the present value of the annual values calculated at three percent discount rate. It represents the “stock” value analogous to land market values. The capitalized visitor reef user value for associated with Miami-Dade County reefs, both artificial and natural, is $1.1 billion. Bear in mind that this value only includes the value that visitor reef users place on the reefs and does not include the values that resident reef users and non-reef-users place on the reefs or the economic contribution of the reefs. The estimation of the value of the reefs to non-reef users was not part of this study.


Data Represents June 2000 to May 2001 Visitor Reef-Users in Miami-Dade County

Item

All Reefs – Artificial and

Natural Artificial Reefs

Natural Reefs

Number of Person-Days of Reef Use 4,660,392 1,412,438 3,247,954 Use Value Per Person-Day ($2000) $7.01 $4.31 $7.09 Annual Use Value - ($2000) $32,651,524 $6,083,896 $23,014,615 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate ($2000) $1,088,384,133 $202,796,533 $767,153,833

Reef users’ willingness to pay to invest in and maintain “new” artificial reefs is provided in Table 5.2.3-2. The use value per person-day is the value per day or a portion of a day of artificial reef use. In Miami-Dade County, reef users are willing to pay $3.6 million annually for this program. Recreational fishers have the highest value associated with the new artificial reef program.


"New" Artificial Reefs in the County Visitor Reef-Users in Miami-Dade County

Item Value Number of Person-Days of Artificial Reef Use 1,412,438 Use Value Per Person-Day for "New" Artificial Reefs ($2000) $2.57 Annual Use Values for "New" Artificial Reefs $3,626,829 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate ($2000) $120,894,300 Note: Use value per person-day is a day or portion of a day of artificial reef use.

The values of reefs by reef type and activity type for Miami-Dade County are provided in Table 5.2.3-3.



Table 5.2.3-3 (Visitors) Value of Reefs to Visitors to Miami-Dade County, by Reef Type and Activity, 2000-2001

Reef Type/Activity Person-Days Annual User Value

($) User Value Per Person-Day ($)

Natural Reefs 3,247,954 $23,014,615 $7.09 Snorkeling 599,359 $4,347,142 $7.25 Scuba Diving 270,813 $2,656,749 $9.81 Fishing 2,363,723 $15,912,165 $6.73 Glass Bottom Boat 14,060 $98,559 $7.01 Artificial Reefs 1,412,438 $6,083,896 $4.31 Snorkeling 2,812,347 $1,020,984 $3.63 Scuba Diving 168,664 $736,686 $4.37 Fishing 959,302 $4,312,230 $4.50 Glass Bottom Boat 3,124 $13,996 $4.48 Natural & Artificial Reefs 4,660,392 $32,651,524 $7.01 Snorkeling 880,706 $5,966,114 $6.77 Scuba Diving 439,477 $3,823,197 $8.70 Fishing 3,323,024 $22,741,322 $6.84 Glass Bottom Boat 17,184 $120,891 $7.03 New Artificial Reefs 1,412,438 $3,626,829 $2.57 Snorkeling 281,347 $608,645 $2.16 Scuba Diving 168,664 $439,165 $2.60 Fishing 959,302 $2,570,675 $2.68 Glass Bottom Boat 3,124 $8,343 $2.67

5.2.4 Demographic Information The Visitor Boater Survey asked the respondent questions regarding his/her socioeconomic characteristics so that a picture of the typical reef user could be developed. The results for Miami-Dade County are summarized in Table 5.2.4-1.



Table 5.2.4-1 Demographic Characteristics of Visitor Reef-Users in Miami-Dade County, 2000

Characteristic Value Median Age of Respondent – Years 41 Sex of Respondent

Male 75% Female 25%



5.3 Total – Residents and Visitors This section summarizes the user activities, economic contribution and use values associated with the artificial and natural reefs for both residents and visitors of Miami-Dade County. Demographic information of both resident and visitor reef users is also provided.

5.3.1 User Activity The numbers of person-days spent using the reefs in Miami County by reef type and population (residents and visitors) are summarized in Table 5.3.1-1. Visitors and residents spent 9.2 million person-days using artificial and natural reefs in Miami-Dade County during the 12-month period from June 2000 to May 2001. Residents spent 4.5 million person-days and visitors spent 4.7 million person-days. Reef users spent 2.9 million person-days using artificial reefs and 6.2 million person-days using natural reefs. A summary of reef use by type of activity is provided in Table 5.3.1-2.


Natural Reefs in Miami-Dade County Residents and Visitors – in millions

Population Artificial Reefs Natural Reefs All Reefs Residents 1.54 2.97 4.51 Visitors 1.41 3.25 4.66 Total 2.95 6.22 9.17



Table 5.3.1-2 Number of Person-Days Spent Using Reefs in Miami-Dade County

By Recreational Activity Residents and Visitors

Activity Residents Visitors Total Snorkeling 1.23 0.88 2.11 Scuba Diving 0.70 0.44 1.14 Fishing 2.58 3.32 5.90 Glass Bottom Boat - 0.017 0.017 Total 4.51 4.66 9.17 Note: Residents were not asked about their use of glass bottom boats.

Reef fishing is a bit more popular than reef diving in Miami-Dade County. Snorkeling was more popular than scuba diving. Fishing comprised 5.9 million person-days while scuba diving and snorkeling comprised 1.1 million person-days and 2.1 person-days, respectively. Visitor reef-related recreation comprises about half of total reef-related recreation by residents and visitors in Miami-Dade County. Visitors spent more days fishing than did residents but residents spent more time diving than visitors.

5.3.2 Economic Contribution The total economic contribution of the reefs to Miami-Dade County includes the contribution of reef expenditures to sales, income and employment. Expenditures by visitors generate income and jobs within the industries that supply reef-related goods and services, such as charter / party boat operations, restaurants and hotels. These industries are called direct industries. In addition, these visitor expenditures create multiplier effects wherein additional income and employment is created as the income earned by the reef-related industries is re-spent within the county. These additional effects of reef-related expenditures are called indirect and induced. Indirect effects are generated as the reef-related industries purchase goods and services from other industries in the county. Induced effects are created when the employees of the direct and indirect industries spend their money in the county.


For residents, the expenditures were converted to sales, income and employment generated within the directly affected industries. The multiplier effect of reef-related spending by residents in the county was not estimated because this spending is also the result of multiplier effects from other economic activities within the county. The multiplier effect of resident spending on reef-related activities is attributed both to the reef system and to these other economic activities that generated the resident income used to purchase the reef-related goods and services. Thus, the economic importance of the reefs would be overstated if the multiplier effects were considered.



To provide a conservative estimate of the economic contribution of resident use of the reef system, the multiplier effects were not included.

The economic contributions of the artificial, natural and all reefs to Miami-Dade County are provided in Tables 5.3.2-1 through 5.3.2-3. The sales contribution is defined as the value of the additional output produced in the county due to the reef-related expenditures. The total income contribution is defined as the sum of employee compensation, proprietor’s income, interest, rents, and profits generated as a result of the reef-related expenditures. The employment contribution is the number of full- time and part-time jobs created due to the reef-related expenditures.

Reef-related expenditures in Miami-Dade County generated $1.3 billion in sales during the 12-month period from June 2000 to May 2001. These sales resulted in $614 million in income to Miami-Dade County residents and provided 18,600 jobs in Miami-Dade County. Artificial reef-related expenditures accounted for 32 percent of the economic contribution of all reefs and natural reef-related expenditures accounted for 68 percent of the economic contribution.


to Miami-Dade County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars

Contribution to: Round of Spending Sales Incomeb Employmentc

Directa Resident $95,200,000 $13,400,000 724 Visitor $181,992,354 $98,000,000 3,532 Total $277,192,354 $111,400,000 4,256

Indirect $50,373,237 $27,000,000 520 Induced $91,522,054 $56,800,000 1,214 Total $419,087,645 $195,200,000 5,990 a The direct contribution is the actual expenditures made in the county. b Total income includes employee compensation, proprietor's income, interest, rents and profits c Employment includes the number of full-time and part-time jobs.






Resident $180,400,000 $25,500,000 1,385 Visitor $390,156,057 $211,900,000 7,462 Total $570,556,057 $237,400,000 8,847

Indirect $106,631,671 $56,600,000 1,087 Induced $200,284,701 $124,500,000 2,662 Total $877,472,429 $418,500,000 12,596 a The direct contribution is the actual expenditures made in the county. b Total income includes employee compensation, proprietor's income, interest, rents and profits c Employment includes the number of full-time and part-time jobs.




Resident $275,600,000 $38,900,000 2,109 Visitor $572,148,411 $309,900,000 10,994 Total $847,748,411 $348,800,000 13,103

Indirect $157,004,908 $83,600,000 1,607 Induced $291,806,755 $181,300,000 3,876 Total $1,296,560,074 $613,700,000 18,586 a The direct contribution is the actual expenditures made in the county. b Total income includes employee compensation, proprietor's income, interest, rents and profits c Employment includes the number of full-time and part-time jobs.

5.3.3 Use Value Use value is the maximum amount of money that reef users are willing to pay to maintain the reefs in their existing condition and to add more artificial reefs to the system. In this study, four types of use values were estimated: (1) the value to natural reef users of maintaining the natural reefs in their existing condition; (2) the value to artificial reef users of maintaining the artificial reefs in their existing condition; (3) the value to all reef users of maintaining both the artificial and natural reef system; and (4) the va lue of adding and maintaining additional artificial reefs.



Use value is presented in terms of per person per day of reef use and in aggregate for all users of the reef system.

The annual value Miami-Dade County visitors and residents place on protecting the reefs in their existing condition and the associated capitalized value is presented in Table 5.3.3-1. The annual value visitor and resident reef-users place on investing in and maintaining “new” artificial reefs is presented in Table 5.3.3-2. These values were explained in Sections 5.1.3 and 5.2.3.



Miami-Dade County, Florida Item Residents Visitors Total

All Reefs - Artificial and Natural Number of Person-Days of Reef Use (millions) 4.51 4.66 9.17 Use Value Per Person-Day $3.17 $7.01 $5.12 Annual Use Value - (million dollars) $14.30 $32.65 $46.95 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate (billion dollars) $0.48 $1.09 $1.57 Artificial Reefs Number of Person-Days of Reef Use (millions) 1.54 1.41 2.95 Use Value Per Person-Day $2.76 $4.31 $3.50 Annual Use Value - (million dollars) $4.25 $6.08 $10.33 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate (billion dollars) $0.14 $0.20 $0.34 Natural Reefs Number of Person-Days of Reef Use (millions) 2.97 3.25 6.21 Use Value Per Person-Day $8.01 $7.09 $7.54 Annual Use Value - (million dollars) $23.74 $23.01 $46.85 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate (billion dollars) $0.79 $0.77 $1.56


Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs Miami-Dade County, Florida

Item Residents Visitors Total

Number of Person-Days of Artificial Reef Use (millions) 1.54 1.41 2.95 Use Value Per Person-Day for "New" Artificial Reefs $0.28 $2.57 $1.38 Annual Use Values for "New" Artificial Reefs (million dollars) $0.44 $3.63 $4.07 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate (million dollars) $14.5 $120.89 $135.4



5.3.4 Demographic Information This section summarizes and compares the demographic characteristics of visitor and resident reef users. These characteristics were obtained from the resident boater survey and the visitor boater survey. They are summarized in Tables 5.3.4-1. A comparison of the demographics indicate that resident and visitors are very similar in terms of age, race, income, and membership in fishing and/or diving clubs.

Table 5.3.4-1 Demographic Characteristics of Resident and Visitor Reef-Users

In Miami-Dade County, 2000

Resident Reef-Users Visitor Reef-Users


Male 93% 75%





Median Household Income $69,722 $55,000

Residents Visitors


25 6.7

Residents Visitors


23 26

Residents Visitors


18% 6%


Chapter 6: Socioeconomic Values of Reefs in Monroe County

This chapter describes the Socioeconomic Value of Artificial and Natural Reefs in Monroe County to residents and visitors. Monroe County includes the Florida Keys. For both groups this chapter discusses the following topics.

§ Volume of user activity on both artificial and natural reefs off Monroe County;


§ Resident and visitor “use value” associated with recreating on artificial and natural reefs in Monroe County; and,

§ Demographic and boater profile of reef users in Monroe County.


6.1 Residents The focus of this section is on the socioeconomic values of the reefs off the Coast of Monroe County (The Florida Keys) to resident boaters. Resident boaters are those individuals who live within Monroe County and use a boat that is owned by a resident of the county to visit the reef system. Resident boats used to visit the reef system are defined as those greater than 16 feet in length and are registered with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

6.1.1 User Activity This chapter first considers the volume of resident user activity associated with the artificial and natural reefs off Monroe County. User activity is expressed in terms of the number of boating days or “party-days” since each boat carries one or more individuals. User activity was analyzed in terms of the kinds of recreational activities (e.g., snorkeling, scuba diving, fishing) that parties participate in when they visit the reef system.

To measure party-days for any recreational resource, it is important to define the universe that the research is intended to measure. In this study, we wish to measure the number of party-days spent on artificial and natural reefs in the Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Monroe County, Florida. For most residents, their own boats are used to facilitate this recreational process. The use of party boats or charter rentals by residents was not considered during this study.

In 1999-2000, there were 26,564 registered pleasure boats in Monroe County according to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (2001). These pleasure craft were divided into the following size classes:

6.0 Socioeconomic Value of Reefs in Monroe County



Number of Boats

Percentage of Total


Less than 12 feet 3,715 14% 14% 12 feet to 15'11'' 3,552 13% 27% 16 feet to 25'11" 15,027 57% 84% 26 feet to 39'11" 3,644 13% 97% 40 feet to 64'11" 598 2% 99% 65 feet to 109'11" 28 1% 100% Greater than 110 feet 0 0% 100% Total 26,564 100%

The largest boat size category of pleasure craft in Monroe County is between 16 and nearly 26 feet in length (57 percent).

Three adjustments were made to reach the target population of boats registered in Monroe County whose owners may visit the reef system. First, sampling was restricted to pleasure craft over 16 feet in length. This was in response to expert opinion that very few pleasure craft less than 16 feet could reach the reef system. Thus, the mail survey was targeted at pleasure craft over 16 feet long so that nonusers could be avoided and to increase the sample size on that segment of the boating population with the highest propensity to use the reef system. This reduced the target boat population in Monroe County to 19,296 pleasure craft.

Additionally, not everyone with a relatively large boat would use an artificial and/or natural reef in the last twelve months. In fact, the results of the survey indicated that only 75.4 percent of these larger vessels used the Monroe County reef system in the last 12 months or 14,550 pleasure craft. Finally, it was determined that about one-half of one percent of the owners of registered boats in the target population had a residence somewhere outside Monroe County. Thus, the target population was again reduced to 14,477 pleasure craft to reflect only resident boat owners.

On average, respondents indicated that over a 12-month period (1999-2000) they used the reef system on 70 separate days while engaging in three main recreational activities: fishing, snorkeling and scuba diving. Remember, these boaters have the highest propensity to use the reef system compared to smaller vessels. Based upon this information, it was estimated that over this 12-month period, Monroe County residents spent 1,013,355 “party-days” on the reef system (70 party days times 14,477 pleasure craft).

In conducting the mail survey, resident reef-users from Monroe County were asked to distribute their 70 party-days in two ways. First, they were asked to distribute their reef usage among three recreational activities as follows: (1) Fishing, (2) Snorkeling and (3) Scuba Diving. Second, respondents were asked to distribute each of these recreational activities between artificial and



natural reefs. Table 6.1.1-1 presents the distribution of party-days for resident boaters in Monroe County.

Monroe County residents spent an estimated 52 percent of their party-days fishing on the artificial and natural reefs followed by snorkeling (28 percent) and scuba diving (20 percent). For all the recreational activities on reefs, there was an obvious preference for natural reefs with 66 percent of the party-days spent visiting natural reefs. The strongest intensity of natural reef use was for snorkeling where 75 percent of the respondents used the natural reef for this activity.

User activity, measured in ”person-days” is presented in the right hand side of Table 6.1.1-1. A “person-day” is equivalent to an individual using the reef system for part or all of one day. The number of person-days was calculated by multiplying by the average size of the party (i.e. number of individuals per party) by the number of party-days. However, one important adjustment to average party size was necessary to calculate residential person-days. The average party size was reduced by subtracting the individuals who were considered as visitors (i.e., non-residents of Monroe County). About 32 percent of the average party was identified as nonresidents.

Thus, Table 6.1.1-1 utilizes the average resident party size to calculate resident person-days. The average residential party size does not vary appreciably among the various reef-related recreational activities and averages about 3.33 residents per party. Because of this, the distribution of person-days per activity is similar to the distribution of party-days discussed above. For example, saltwater fishing on reefs garnered 1.74 million person-days or 52 percent of all person-days during the 12-month period (December 1999 to November 2000). The total number of person-days residents used the reef system off Monroe County over a 12-month period was estimated at 3.38 million.

While party-days gives a “boater dimension” to user activity in and around the reef system, person-days yield a “people dimension” to use of the reef system. The former is especially useful in judging the adequacy of the boating infrastructure such as marinas and boat ramps while the latter is used in calculating recreational use value, which is discussed below.



Table 6.1.1-1 (Residents) Estimated Resident User Activity as Measured by Party-Days and Person-Days on

Artificial and Natural Reefs off Monroe County, Florida, 2000 Number and Distribution of Party-Days by


Activity/ Type of Reef


Percentage of Party-Days Per Activity by Reef

Type

Percentage of Total Party-Days

Per Activity


Number of Resident Person-Days2 by

Activity by Reef Type

Percentage of Person-Days Per

Activity by Reef Type

Percentage of Total Person-

Days Per Activity

Fishing 52% 3.31 52% Artificial 158,083 30% 523,256 30% Natural 368,861 70% 1,220,931 70% Subtotal 526,944 100% 1,744,187 100% Snorkeling 28% 3.89 33% Artificial 70,935 25% 275,937 25% Natural 212,805 75% 827,810 75% Subtotal 283,740 100% 1,103,747 100% Scuba Diving 20% 2.62 16% Artificial 115,523 57% 302,669 57% Natural 87,149 43% 228,329 43% Subtotal 202,672 100% 530,998 100% All Activities Artificial 344,541 34% 1,101,862 33% Natural 668,815 66% 2,277,070 67% Total 1,013,356 100% 3.33 3,378,932 100% 1 Resident person-days were calculated by multiplying the number of party-days by the average resident party size.



6.1.2 Economic Contribution To fully understand the economic contribution of reefs to Monroe County it is first important to recognize what factors influence the demand for boating in this area. This will help to understand the nature of boating in the county and how it relates to the use of artificial and natural reefs. In a study by Bell and Leeworthy (1986), the authors found that the demand for boats by individuals was related to boat prices, population and per capita income. Therefore, it is expected that there would be a higher number of registered pleasure craft in counties that are large as measured by population and are relatively affluent as measured by real per capita income.

The number of registered boats in any county is critical in assessing the adequacy of the boating infrastructure such as boat ramps and, of course, artificial and natural reefs. This topic has recently been addressed in the 2000 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreational Plan (2001) issued by the Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. However, this report did not include an assessment of the reef system in various regions of Florida. This chapter considers the demand for boating in Monroe County, not the infrastructure available. This information will provide the reader with an overview of Monroe County and valuable information necessary to assess the adequacy of the boating infrastructure. The overview includes the size and nature of the county’s population, per capita income, industrial structure, and the infrastructure related to saltwater boating. This will provide a background by which to assess the results of this study.

Monroe County is on the southeast coast of Florida bordering both the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. Key West is the principal city in this county. In 1999, the county ranked 34th in the state in terms of population, with 79,941 residents1. Over the last ten years, population in this county has grown by 23.5 percent making it the 45th fastest growing county in Florida (out of 67 counties). Monroe County has 87 persons per square mile as compared to 284 for Florida as a whole, making it the 39th most densely populated county in the State. This county’s population has a median age of 41 years, which is comparable to the general population of Florida, which has a median age of 39 years.

The University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research projects the county’s population to reach 102,100 by 2015 or a 28 percent increase. In-migration to Monroe County, will account for about 80 percent of this growth. Thus, this county’s population growth will depend heavily on individuals moving into the county, and more specifically into the Florida Keys.

In 1998, Monroe County had a per capita income of $32,501 placing it seventh among the 67 counties in the State of Florida. This per capita income was 21 percent above the state average of $26,845. Monroe County residents received nearly $13,000 per capita in dividends, interest and rents. Thus, the holding of capital assets such as stocks, bonds and property largely accounts for the relative affluence of the residents. However, average earnings of those employed in 1 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, July 1, 1999.



Monroe County fall short of the average wage for the State by almost 16 percent. Monroe County appears to have a bimodal population where wealthy individuals live off accumulated capital assets while the other segments of the population are employed in industries paying wages below the state average. The net effect of these factors is a high per capita income above the state average. This could generate a large demand for reef-related recreational boating.

In 1998, there were 41,190 persons employed in Monroe County generating $1.029 billion in wage and salaries. Over the last ten years, employment grew by 12.2 percent, which corresponds to the growth rate of the population as discussed above. Measured by employee earnings, the largest industries in 1998 were services (34 percent), retail trade (17.8 percent), and state and local government (13.9 percent). Of particular note, this county provides a significant amount of tourist-related services such as lodging, amusement and recreation. About 6,800 workers were involved in these industries in Monroe County in 1998. Tourism provides part of the economic base for this county.

In 2000, there were 26,638 recreational boats (FDHSMV, 2001) registered in Monroe County or 1 boat for every 4 people. For the State of Florida, there is 1 registered pleasure boat for every 14 residents. The infrastructure supporting various coastal or saltwater forms of boating recreation in Monroe County include the following (FDEP, 2000)(Pybas, 1997):



3. Other Facilities: 4,452-boat dry storage;


The relatively high per capita income in Monroe County coupled with the vast water resources makes the demand for recreational boating the highest in the State of Florida as measured by the ratio of registered boats to people. However, the high population density, probably as in many of the southeastern Florida counties, may contribute to crowding and congestion, which impinges on the carrying capacity of both man-made facilities (e.g., artificial reefs; boat ramps) and natural resources. This increases the cost of recreational boating and reduces the demand for pleasure boats. This “working hypothesis” of a supply side problem could be one of several factors that may affect the demand for registered boats in Monroe County.

Using a mail survey, 3,500 registered boaters in Monroe County were contacted at random using the survey instrument provided in Appendix A. Boat owner addresses were obtained from a registered boater database compiled by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. A total of 790 registered boaters responded to the mail survey and 75.4 percent (596) indicated that they used their pleasure crafts to visit the reefs offshore of Monroe County during a 12-month period (1999-2000).



To estimate the economic contribution to Monroe County of resident spending associated with reef use, the respondents were asked to estimate party spending during their last boating activity. It was assumed that each boating trip would involve one day since the residents are in their county of residence. Residential expenditures per party were distributed according to the categories of recreational activity as follows.

Average Resident Spending Per Party for Monroe County Reef-Users

Activity

Estimated Spending Per Party Per Day

Percentage of Residents Per

Party


Per Day (1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) * (3)


Recreational fishing on reefs was most expensive ($250 per party per day) and scuba diving was the least expensive ($171 per party per day). Expenditures for marina fees, equipment rentals and restaurants made the former activity a more expensive recreational activity than the latter. Detailed expenditures on particular items are discussed below.

Note that an adjustment was made to the size of the boating party in order to calculate estimated expenditures by residents as summarized above. About 28 to 36 percent of the typical party included individuals who were apparently guests of the Monroe County residents. A simplifying assumption was made that these visitors would pay their fair share of the trip cost. For example, visitors would pay a proportion of the trip costs such as the costs of boat fuel, restaurants and bait. In reality, residents might pay less than their proportionate share. However, it shall be assumed that an equal sharing of cost between residents and their visitors existed to obtain a conservative estimate of resident spending.

To derive the economic impact of a particular reef-related recreational activity, one must briefly return to Table 6.1.1-1. This table shows the number of residential party-days and person-days associated with reef use over a 12-month period off the Coast of Monroe County. For example, recreational fishing generated 526,945 resident party-days were spent recreational fishing on the reefs of Monroe County. According to resident spending per party discussed above, fishers spent $169.82 per trip. Thus, annual expenditures for reef-related fishing was estimated to be $89.5 million dollars ($169.82 times 526,945).

Based upon the distribution of party-days per reef type, recreational fishers spent about $26.8 million while using artificial reefs and the balance or $62.6 million was spent in conjunction with use of natural reefs by. There did not appear to be much difference between per party spending by fishers who used either type of reef. This held for the other two recreational activities as well.



Table 6.1.2-1 presents the economic contribution of all reef-related recreation off the Monroe County coast. Residents spent an estimated $147.5 million during a 12-month period (December 1999 through November 2000). About two-thirds of this was spent while using natural reefs ($98 million) while the balance ($49 million) was spent in conjunction with use of the artificial reef system. About 61 percent of total spending or $90 million was due to reef-related recreational fishing while $33 million (22 percent) was due to reef-related snorkeling and $25 million (17 percent) was due to reef-related scuba diving.

It is important to clarify the economic contribution of resident boaters in Monroe County. The engine of economic growth for any region is found in its export industries such as tourism in Monroe County. As export income flows through the region, it creates local income (e.g., money paid for haircuts by residents) and a demand for imports (e.g., TV sets since Monroe County does not have such a manufacturer). The local income is spent on everything from marina services to dining out at a local restaurant to groceries to mortgages or rents. Thus, the spending by residents in conjunction with reef use represents the choice of recreating locally as opposed to leaving the area to recreate elsewhere.

Table 6.1.2-1 (Residents) Reef-Related Expenditures, Wages and Employment Generated by

Resident Boating Activities in Monroe County, Florida, 2000


(Million $) Wages

(Million $)


Part-Time Jobs) Artificial Reef Fishing $26.85 $3.40 232 Snorkeling $8.26 $1.12 79 Scuba Diving $14.24 $1.90 139 Subtotal $49.35 $6.42 449 Percentage Attributed to Artificial Reefs 33% 34% 34% Natural Reef Fishing $62.64 $7.94 540 Snorkeling $24.77 $3.35 237 Scuba Diving $10.74 $1.44 105 Subtotal $98.15 $12.73 882 Percentage Attributable to Natural Reefs 67% 66% 66% Total All Reefs Fishing $89.49 $11.34 772 Snorkeling $33.02 $4.47 316 Scuba Diving $24.99 $3.34 243 Total All Reefs/All Activities $147.50 $19.15 1,331



The reef system keeps the “locals” in the county and enlarges the economy by $147.5 million in local spending. In contrast to visitors entering the county, there is no multiplier effect. Generally, the more money kept in the local economy the larger will be the regional multiplier because there would be less “leakage” through the purchase of imports or residents leaving the area for recreational pursuits in places such as Fort Lauderdale or Orlando. Just how much the regional multiplier is enlarged from resident use of the reef system is beyond the scope of this study. However, it is safe to say that protection and maintenance of reef system has the potential to keep more business in Monroe County. For ardent reef-users, the absence of reefs off the Monroe County coast would certainly divert these residents elsewhere for recreation to the economic detriment of Monroe County.

Reef-related local spending, discussed above, is in itself, only a vehicle to create jobs and wages in the local community. To evaluate which industries benefit from resident reef use, reef-users were asked to break their expenditures into 12 categories such as boat fuel, ice, tackle, and marina fees. For each of the twelve categories, resident expenditures were matched to total sales as published in the 1997 U.S. Census of Business (1997). For example, spending on boat fuel was matched up with sales at gasoline stations in Monroe County. It was found that each gasoline station employee “sells” $227,300 per year out of which they are paid about $15,939 or about 7 percent. The annual salary may seem low, but this figure is for full and part time employees with a relatively low skill level. Thus, every $227,300 in gasoline purchased for reef-related recreation by local users, generates one job paying about $15,939 per year.

This rather simple procedure was followed for each of the 12 expenditure categories, which vary greatly in labor intensity. The higher the sales-to-employment ratio, the less labor intensive the activity. For example, restaurants are relatively labor intensive (i.e., need cooks and servers) while gasoline stations are highly automated and need fewer employees per $100,000 in sales.

Table 6.1.2-1 shows the estimated wages and employment generated by resident spending on reef-related recreational activities in Monroe County. The $147.5 million in annual spending generated about $19.2 million dollars in annual wages supporting 1,331 employees or $14,388 per employee. As discussed above, this annual wage reflects part and full-time employees in low wage service and retail industries where boaters using the reef system would concentrate their spending.

It is also important to identify the industries that benefit from reef-related resident spending. Table 6.1.2-2 shows the 12 spending categories of resident boaters. One would expect that expenditures would be concentrated on running and storing a boat and the results support this expectation. Expenditures for boat oil and gas constituted 28 percent of all spending followed by food and beverages from restaurants (12 percent) and stores (11 percent) and spending on marina slip rentals and dockage fees (8 percent). In terms of dollar figures, resident reef-users spent about $12 million annually on goods and services provided by the marina industry. According to the U.S. Census of Business (1997), the marina industry in Monroe County grossed about $35 million in sales. Thus, resident reef-users may account for as much as 50 percent of these sales.



Table 6.1.2-2 (Residents) Detailed Expenditure Pattern Supporting Employment and Wages by

All Resident Reef-Users in Monroe County, Florida, 2000


(Million $)

Percentage of Total

Expenditures


Part-Time Jobs)

Percentage of Total

Employment Wages

(Million $)


1. Boat gas and oil $40.4 27% 178 14% $2.83 15% 2. Marina slip rentals and dockage fees $12.0 8% 98 7% $2.03 11% 3. Food and beverages from

restaurants/bars $19.2 13% 457 35% $5.18 27% 4. Food and beverages from stores $17.0 12% 108 8% $1.60 8% 5. Tackle $11.8 8% 99 8% $1.80 9% 6. Bait $8.9 6% 74 6% $1.35 7% 7. Gas for auto $5.4 4% 24 2% $0.38 2% 8. ICE $6.1 4% 27 2% $0.43 2% 9. Equipment rentals $4.9 3% 90 7% $1.13 6% 10. Boat ramp and parking fees $2.3 2% 19 1% $0.39 2% 11. Sundries (e.g. Sun screen, sea

sickness pills, etc.) $4.9 3% 39 3% $0.50 3% 12. All other $14.7 10% 119 89% $1.52 8% Total $147.5 100% 1,331 100% $19.15 100% Source: Florida State University



Resident non-reef users and visitors who keep their boats in local marinas would also generate sales to the marina industry. The role of visitors is discussed in the next section.

In terms of employment, reef-related resident spending created proportionately more employment in marinas and restaurants since, as discussed above, these industries are relatively labor intensive. Although ranked number one as a component of spending, gasoline stations are a capital- intensive industry. That is, spending on boat oil and gas accounted for one-fourth of all spending, but only one in eight jobs. As might be expected, wages follow employment. That is, the higher the percentage of spending on labor intensive industries, the higher the total wages generated. However, some industries employ highly skilled persons such as marinas where the wages paid are proportionately higher than employment as indicated in Table 6.1.2-2.


Yet, the general public does pay for the deployment of artificial reefs and the protection of natural reefs. So, there must be some unmeasured value of providing the reef system to the general public. Because reef-users are attracted to the reefs for recreation, we call this unmeasured value “use value”. For example, one could engage in scuba diving without the benefit of a natural or artificial reef. The addition of a reef presumably adds some “value” to the scuba diver’s recreational experience. This section examines the incremental use value of having a reef system off the coast of Monroe County.

The contingent valuation (CV) method asks users about their willingness-to-pay for a reef system contingent on specified conditions (e.g., use of funds for various reef related improvements). The CV method has been employed in numerous studies of use value from deep-sea fishing to deer hunting. 2 The reef-using respondents were asked a series of CV questions dealing with their willingness to pay for a specific type of reef program. The respondents were asked to consider the total cost for their last boating trip to the reefs including travel expenses, lodging, and all boating expenses. Then, the respondents were asked:

“If your total cost per trip would have been $______ higher, would you have been willing to pay this amount to maintain the (kind of reef – artificial, natural or both artificial and natural) in their existing condition.”





The above willingness to pay question was asked in three forms to each respondent: (l) natural reefs separately; (2) artificial reefs separately and (3) a combination of natural and artificial reefs. For the combined program, the rotated cost increase was doubled. Because the primary spending unit is the “party”, the willingness to pay response was interpreted as an increase in trip cost to the entire party.

To estimate use values per party per trip (a day and a trip are equal for residents), the data for all counties were pooled. A Logit model was used to estimate use values per party per trip. The Logit model tested for differences in willingness-to-pay by county, activity, household income, age of respondent, years of boating experience in South Florida, race/ethnicity, sex, length of boat owned, and whether a member of a fishing or diving club.

Separate models were estimated for each of the four reef programs (e.g., natural reefs, existing artificial reefs, natural & artificial reefs combined, and new artificial reefs). For the natural reef, existing artificial reefs and the combined programs, the only significant differences in willingness-to-pay found were for reef users with income greater than $100,000. This group had a higher willingness-to-pay than other reef users. There were no other differences found. The Logit model did not produce different use values per party per trip among counties. Because party sizes were not significantly different among the counties, the estimated use values per person-trip were also the same across counties for each of the reef valuation programs. The estimated use values per party per trip (day) were $32.55 for the natural reefs, $11.31 for the artificial reefs and $12.94 for the combined program.

To estimate total annual use values for each county, the number of party-days was multiplied by the estimated values per party per day. The use value per person-day was then estimated by dividing the total annual use value by the total number of person-days. This normalized value per person-day can be compared with results from other studies.

The results are consistent with the idea that natural reefs are preferred to artificial reefs. For Monroe County residents, the average use value per person-day of the natural reef use was $13.25 versus $3.18 for artificial reefs. Total use is also higher for natural versus artificial reefs. Monroe County residents’ natural reef use was 2.277 million person-days versus about 1.102 million person-days for artificial reefs. This translated into an estimate of total annual use value of about $21.77 million for natural reefs and $3.9 million for artificial reefs. Capitalizing the annual use values, using a three percent discount rate, yields asset values of about $725.7 million for the natural reefs and about $129.9 million for the artificial reefs. These results are summarized in Table 6.1.3-1.




Monroe County, Florida, 2000


(millions)

Annual User Value

(Millions $)


($)

Asset Value at 3%

(Millions $) Natural Reefs 2.077 $21.77 $9.56 $725.7

Snorkeling 0.828 $6.93 $8.37 $230.9

Scuba Diving 0.228 $2.84 $12.42 $94.6

Fishing 1.221 $12.00 $9.83 $400.2

Artificial Reefs 1.102 $3.90 $3.54 $129.9

Snorkeling 0.276 $0.80 $2.91 $26.7

Scuba Diving 0.303 $1.31 $4.32 $43.6

Fishing 0.523 $1.79 $3.42 $59.6

Natural & Artificial Reefs 3.379 $13.11 $3.88 $437.1

Snorkeling 1.104 $3.67 $3.33 $122.4

Scuba Diving 0.531 $2.62 $4.94 $87.4

Fishing 1.744 $6.82 $3.91 $227.3

New Artificial Reefs 1.102 $0.47 $0.42 $15.6

Snorkeling 0.276 $0.14 $0.51 $4.7

Scuba Diving 0.303 $0.23 $0.75 $7.6

Fishing 0.523 $0.10 $0.19 $3.3





One can see the usefulness of measuring the economic benefits of natural reef systems to policy makers in justifying public budgets for such programs. If protected, the use value for natural reefs will flow into perpetuity. Using a real discount rate of 3 percent, the capitalized value of the natural reefs off the Monroe County coast was estimated at $725.7 million. Why is this important? Natural reef systems are not privately owned, but are common property resources. If a region or a nation were preparing a balance sheet showing its assets and liabilities, the asset value of the natural reef system would need to be included. This analysis provides an estimate of the capitalized value of the natural reef system, which is an asset to the residents of Monroe County. Bear in mind that this value only includes the value that reef users place on the reefs and does not include the values that non-reef-users place on the reefs or the economic contribution of the reefs. The estimation of the value of the reefs to non-reef users was not part of this study.

In addition, asset value comes into play when there is an environmental disaster such as an oil or hazardous waste spill. If the polluter destroyed for the foreseeable future 20 percent of the natural reef system off the Monroe County coastline, then the government could ask for up to $145.14 million (i.e., 0.20 times $725.7 million) in compensatory damage. An example of this problem is in the Florida Keys, where ships that destroy natural reefs are required to pay the loss of use value as a result of legal proceedings. The values provided here are quite real and useful especially in the case of environmental damage assessment.

As discussed above, the use value per person-day of artificial reef use is lower than the use value per person-day of natural reef use, as one would expect. However, preservation of the existing artificial reef system off the Monroe County coastline provides an annual use value of about $3.9 million. Again, this is for the maintenance of these reefs. The capitalized value of the artificial reef system off the Monroe County coastline is estimated as $129.9 million. If users were obstructed from getting to Monroe County’s artificial reefs, an estimate of damages to the reef users would be either the annual use value lost if users are temporarily obstructed or the capitalized value if users were permanently cut-off from using the artificial reefs.

The Logit model estimated for the new artificial reef program found some statistically significant differences in willingness-to-pay. Artificial reef users in Palm Beach and Broward counties had higher willingness-to-pay than those from Miami-Dade and Monroe counties. Snorkelers and scuba divers on artificial reefs had higher values than those who participated in fishing activities on artificial reefs. The only other statistically significant variable was household income. As household income levels increased so did willingness-to-pay for new artificial reefs. On a per party per day basis, the estimated values ranged from a high of $1.97 for snorkelers and scuba divers using artificial reefs in Monroe County to a low of $0.63 for those who participated in fishing activities on artificial reefs in Monroe County.

As with the other three programs, the estimated values per party per day were multiplied by the total party-days spent on artificial reefs by artificial reefs users in the county to get total annual use value for the county. The total annual use values were then divided by the total annual



person-days of artificial reef use in the county to get an estimate of the value per person-day. Again, this normalized value per person-day can be compared with results from other studies.

On a per person-day basis, the estimated values ranged from a low of $0.17 for those fishing to a high of $0.66 for those who participated in scuba diving off Monroe County. Across all activities, the average was 43 cents per person-day.

In terms of total annual use value, scuba divers have the highest value for new artificial reefs. Even though there were more fishing person-days than scuba diving person-days, the value per person-day was much higher for scuba diving than for fishing. Across all activities, the total annual user value of new artificial reefs is about $467 thousand with an asset value of $15.6 million.

The relatively low marginal willingness to pay of $0.42 per person-day for artificial reef expansion in comparison to artificial reef maintenance discussed above is somewhat expected. If present users do not feel that congestion on artificial reefs is a problem, they would be expected to value expansion lower than maintenance of the existing artificial reefs. However, their willingness to pay anything for expansion demonstrates some level of unhappiness with the existing number of artificial reefs off the Monroe County coastline. Perhaps, residents are competing with visitors for choice spots or just getting in the way of fishing and diving when arriving at an artificial reef.

6.1.4 Role of “No-Take” Zones Both the economic contribution and the use value of the reef system are based upon the management or lack thereof of these resources. There have been controversies about the wisdom of deploying, for example, artificial reefs. Opponents argue that this encourages over fishing since artificial reefs tend to concentrate fish in a smaller number of places and they become easier targets for fishers. Others find that artificial reefs serve as added habitats and thereby increase the overall biomass available to fishers. The study of artificial reefs in northwest Florida (Bell, et al., 1999) found that most people fell into the latter group believing that the pie got larger with the deployment of more reefs. However, other studies such as Bolnsack et al., (1997) and Grossman et al., (1997) report results that support opinions of opponents regarding additional artificial reef systems.

In this section, ”no take” zones in the Florida Keys and other counties in southeast Florida are examined. “No-take” zones are defined as areas where reef-users can visit but nothing can be removed from an artificial or natural reef area. The existing reef system is coming under increased pressure to yield stable catch rates for fishing and a pristine environment for snorkeling and scuba diving. Also, the reefs play a vital role in the entire oceanic ecosystem by providing habitat and protection for young fish and other creatures. To provide a net benefit, it is argued that “no-take” zones would actually increase recreational benefits even though takings would be banned in certain areas.



Supporters of “no-take” zones point to the overuse of common property resources such as ocean fishing both by recreational and commercial interests. In effect, “no-take” zones would vest the property right with the government. Although the carrying capacity of a reef system is not evaluated in this study, the concept has widespread validity. This concept has been examined by many natural resource economists with the finding that congestion and declining yields of fish created a decline of use value per day. 3 Bell (1992) found that tourists visiting Florida would go elsewhere if fishery catch-rates declined to a certain point from the existing level. No one knows exactly where and to what degree “no-take” zones must be employed to increase the net benefit available to recreational interests. Like the deployment of artificial reefs, “no-take” zones have become a controversial issue. Therefore, as part of this study, respondents were asked for their opinion of using “no-take” zones as a management tool for artificial and natural reefs in southeast Florida.

In each of our four counties, reef-users were asked questions regarding “no-take” zones. The results for Monroe County are summarized in Table 6.1.4-1. In 1997, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary created 23 areas or zones (13.37 square miles) in which the taking of anything including fish and shellfish is prohibited. It is reasonable to believe that residents of Monroe County may have formed an opinion about this management effort and indeed, about 78 percent of the Monroe County respondents supported this experimental management effort. Because Monroe County (Florida Keys) already has a system of “no take” zones in effect, respondents were asked if they would support additional “no take” zones in their county. About 57 percent of the respondents were willing to support additional “no take” zones in Monroe County. Only 44 percent of respondents were willing to extend this concept northward through Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties – 17 percent of the respondents did not know.

Finally, respondents were asked for their opinion regarding the percent of the reef system that should be included in “no take” zones. Targeting only natural reefs, respondents indicated, on average, they would be willing to extend this management tool to almost 32 percent of the natural reefs off the Monroe County coast. Since the average may be skewed by exceptionally large answers, the median percent of natural reefs respondents felt might be managed by the use of “no-take” zones was also reviewed. The median, or the midpoint between the highest and lowest answer, was 20 percent.

Given the short experience of the Keys “no-take” zones, it was remarkable that present reef-users would be willing to reduce their present natural reef recreational areas from 20 to 32 percent in an effort to improve the net recreational benefits. These statistics indicate a willingness to support management efforts in the direction of “no-take” zones. Such results are important to public officials responsible for managing the natural reef system off the Monroe County coast.

3 See Green (1984) and Bell (1992).



Final Report

Table 6.1.4-1 (Residents) Opinion of Monroe County Residents on "No Take" Zones for Artificial and Natural Reefs, 2000

Survey Question


Answering "Yes"


Answering "No"



Sample Size

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Support "NO TAKE" Zones in for some reefs in the Florida Keys 78% 18% 4% 609

Support "NO TAKE" Zones on some reefs off shore of Monroe County 57% 21% 22% 609


44% 39% 17% 609

Average for

All Response Median of All Responses

What Percent of Natural Reefs in Monroe County Should be Protected with "NO TAKE" Zones

32% 20% 609



6.1.5 Demographic Information The mail survey administered to Monroe County residents included questions regarding demographic characteristics. The reason for collecting such information was to determine what segment of the population would gain from protecting and maintaining artificial and natural reefs and/or designating “no-take” zones as discussed in the previous section. Respondents were asked to provide some background on both themselves and their boating experiences. Thus, the survey was used to collect demographic information and to develop a boater profile to better understand these people called “reef-users” in Monroe County. Table 6.1.5-1 presents the results from the mail survey combined with comparable information on the entire Monroe County population.

Table 6.1.5-1 Demographic Characteristics and Boater Profile of Reef-Users in

Monroe County Florida, 2000 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents to Mail Survey

Reef Users

Monroe County Population

Median Age 54 41 Sex

Male 86% 51% Female 14% 49%


Education 1 Percentage that completed College Degree or More 57% 16% Median Household Income $56,393 $31,922 Boater Profile Average Years of Residence in Broward County 16 N/A Average Years of Boating in South Florida 22 N/A Average Length of Boat Used for Saltwater Activities (ft) 24 N/A Percentage of Respondents that belong to fishing and/or diving clubs 15% N/A Sample Size 604 1 Latest year that educational level attained by county is available is for 1990 from the U.S. Census Bureau. Source: Florida State University and the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1990, 2000).

The owners of reef-using registered boats were significantly older than the general population of Monroe County. The median age of reef-users is 54 years compared to 41 years for the general population. Statistically speaking, there is real age difference between these two groups. Further, boating appears to be a male-dominated activity as over 86 percent of the respondents



indicated they were male compared to about 51 percent in the general population. Of course, there is no foolproof way to control who completes the survey instrument once it reaches a boat owner’s residence. However, the survey is directed at the person to whom the boat was registered.

With respect to race, about 94 percent of the respondents characterized themselves as white compared to 91 percent in the general population of Monroe County.

Further, a lesser percentage characterized themselves as Hispanic/Latino (7 percent) as compared to the general population (16 percent).

Nearly 57 percent of the respondents indicated that they had at least a college degree compared to about 16 percent for the general population in 1990.4 The education level of the general population is probably much higher today than ten years ago, but may not reach the levels reported by the respondents.

Since education and income are positively correlated, it is expected that the median household income reported by reef-users would be higher than the general population. This is indeed the case as confirmed by the last demographic statistic in Table 6.1.5-1 where respondents reported a median household income of nearly $56,393 compared to $31,922 for the general population. Of course, the purchase of a relatively large pleasure craft is also associated with higher income as found by Bell and Leeworthy (1986) and was discussed earlier in this chapter. So, this finding is not unusual.

Using the information gathered from the first section on user activity, it is estimated that a minimum of 42,497 residents engaged in reef-using recreational activities during the 12-month period from December 1999 to November 2000 in Monroe County. This number was obtained by multiplying the number of registered boats that were estimated to be involved in reef use (12,996) by the average number of residents per party (3.27 individuals). Because the turnover rate of the party is unknown, the term “minimum” is used because the same residents may not go on every boat outing. There are about 73,367 residents in Monroe County who are over 14 years of age (i.e. about that age at which they could become boaters). The boating population that uses the reef system constitutes a minimum of 17.7 percent of the county’s population (12,996/73,367). The boating population that uses the reef system would probably be higher if the party turnover rate (i.e. different individuals on each boat outing) were considered. The information presented here provides some insight on what segments of the Monroe County population that are being served by artificial and natural reefs off its coast. This should be valuable information for policy makers at the local and state levels.

Finally, a boater profile for Monroe County was developed from the survey results as follows. The typical reef-using boater has lived in Monroe County for 16 years and boated for 22 years. The reef-using boaters in the sample own a pleasure craft of 24 feet in length, on average. The

4 The U.S. Census Bureau has not yet released educational levels for counties as part of the 2000 Census.



weighted average of registered boats 16 feet and over in Monroe County is about 25 feet so it appears that the sample is particularly reflective of the population based on average boat length. About 15 percent of the respondents were members of fishing and/or diving clubs. This indicator gives some idea of the intensity and degree of interest in recreational fishing, snorkeling and scuba diving off the coast of Monroe County, Florida.

6.2 Visitors The focus of this section is the socioeconomic value of the reefs associated with visitors to Monroe County. Tourism and reef use in Monroe County takes place in the Florida Keys. As defined in Chapter 1, Introduction, visitors to a county are defined as nonresidents of the county that they are visiting. For example, a person from Broward County visiting the Florida Keys is considered to be a visitor to Monroe County. Likewise, a person from New York visiting the Florida Keys is considered to be a visitor to Monroe County.

This section provides the following values regarding visitors to Monroe County: reef user activity, economic contribution of the reefs; use value of the reefs and demographic information. Detailed explanations of the methods and data used to estimated these values for Monroe County are provided in Chapter 1: Introduction and Chapter 2: Socioeconomic Values of Reefs in Southeast Florida.

6.2.1 User Activity The activity of reef users is summarized in person-days of reef use. For visitors, the number of person-trips to use the reefs is also of interest. In order to measure person-days and person-trips associated with reef use, the total number of person-trips by all visitors to Monroe County must be estimated. Total visitation includes visits to Monroe County by non-residents of Monroe County to participate in any activity be it recreation, business or family matters. The total number of person-trips by all visitors to the county was estimated using the Capacity Utilization Model. This model uses a variety of information obtained from the counties and the responses to the General Visitor Survey. The number of person-trips was then converted to the number of person-days spent by all visitors to Monroe County using information from the General Visitor Survey.

The number of person-trips taken by all visitors to Monroe County and the number of person-days these visitors spent in the county during the year 2000-2001, developed in Chapter 2, is summarized in Table 6.2.1-1.


All Visitors to Monroe Countya June 2000 to May 2001 – in millions Measure of Visitation Summer – 00 Winter – 01 Total Number of Person-Trips 1.51 1.60 3.11 Number of Person-Days 5.54 6.59 12.13 a Includes cruise ship passengers who disembark at Key West for day trip. Note: Summer 2000 is from June 2000 to November 2000. Winter 2001 is from December 2000 to May 2001.



Visitors took 3.1 million person-trips to Monroe County from June 2000 to May 2001 and spent 12.1 million person-days in the county.


To get the number of boating person-trips when the person used the reefs, the number of boating person-trips is multiplied by the proportion of boating person-trips when the respondent used the reefs. This proportion was obtained from the Visitor Boater Screening Tally sheets. These sheets indicated the proportion of boaters intercepted who used the reefs at least once in the past 12 months. The results for the summer, winter and the year are summarized in Tables 6.2.1-2.


And Visitors Who Used the Reefs in Monroe County Over the Past 12 Months

Season





Boateda


Proportion of Boating Person

Trips When the Reef was Used for Recreationb


Summer - June 2000 to Nov. 2001 1,513,099 0.33 502,031 0.90 450,077

Winter – December 2000 to May 2001 1,596,298 0.26 413,226 0.90 370,462

Year Round - June 2000 to May 2001 3,109,397 915,257 820,539

a Saltwater Boating Only. From General Visitor Survey answer to Question 13 (Which activities_modes did you participate in over the past 12 months in this county). The proportion is equal to the number of respondents who participated in at least one boating activity divided by the total number of respondents to the General Visitor Survey.


Of the 3.1 million person-trips visitors took to Monroe County from June 2000 to May 2001, 33 percent of the trips involved saltwater boating activities in the summer and 26 percent involved saltwater boating activities in the winter. Of the resulting 915,000 boating person-trips by visitors to Monroe County, 90 percent of those trips involved recreational reef use. Thus,



visitors who used the reefs for recreation in Monroe County made about 821,000 person-trips to the county from June 2000 to May 2001.

Next, the total number of person-days that visitor boaters who used the reefs spent visiting the county was estimated. This estimate is the total boating person-trips when reefs were used times the average days per visit by boaters who used the reefs. The average days per visit by boaters who used the reefs was obtained from Question 10 of the Visitor Boater Survey (How many nights are you spending on this trip?) where a 1 was added to each of the responses to convert number of nights to number of days. The average number of days and the total person- days reef users spent in Monroe County in 2000-2001 are provided in Table 6.2.1-3.

Table 6.2.1-3 (Visitors) Average Number of Days Visiting Monroe County

And Total Person Days in Monroe County By Visitor Boaters Who Used the Reefs




Monroe 8.39 6,887,497

Reef-using boaters who visited Monroe County spent an average of 8.39 days in the county during their trip. As a result, these visitors spent 6.9 million person-days in Monroe County from June 2000 to May 2001.



To allocate the total number of days in an activity-boat mode to the use of artificial reefs versus natural reefs versus no reefs, the proportion of fishing days and the proportion of dives spent on



each reef/no reef was calculated from the Visitor Boater Survey responses. Question 16 asked the respondent how many days he/she spent on the artificial reef and Question 17 asked the respondent how many days he/she spent on the natural reef. For scuba divers and snorkelers, Question 18 asked for the total number of dives and Questions 19 and 20 asked for the number of dives on artificial versus natural reefs. A dive is defined as exiting and reentering the boat and applies to both divers and snorkelers. From the responses to these questions, the proportions of fishing days spent on the artificial and natural reefs and the proportions of dives spent on the artificial and natural reefs were obtained.

The proportion of visitor days that visitor boaters who use the reefs participated in fishing and diving/snorkeling and the proportion of fishing days and scuba/snorkeling dives that visitor boaters spent on the artificial, natural and no reefs for Monroe County are presented in Table 6.2.1-4.

Table 6.2.1-4 (Visitors) Saltwater Recreational Activities from All Boating Modes Percent of Visitor Person-Days That Reef-Using Boaters


From Visitor Boater Survey Monroe County


Activity Total

Respondents


Days Artificial

Reefs Natural Reefs

No Reefs

Sum of Percentages

Fishinga 1,392 26% 20% 40% 40% 100% Scuba Diving/Snorkelingb

1,392 17% 16% 80% 4% 100% a Percent of fishing days on each reef type is reported. b Percent of dives on each reef type is reported. A dive is a boat exit and re-entry. Note: Boating Modes are Charter, Party, Rental, and Private (Own or Friend’s) Boat.

Visitor boaters who came to Monroe County to use the reefs spent 26 percent of their visiting days participating in saltwater fishing from a charter, party, rental or private boat. Of these fishing days, 20 percent of days were spent fishing near artificial reefs, 40 percent of days were spent fishing near natural reefs and 40 percent of days were spent fishing near no reefs. Also, visitor boaters who came to the county to use the reefs spent 17 percent of their visiting days scuba diving or snorkeling. Of these diving/snorkeling days, 16 percent of dives were spent on artificial reefs, 80 percent of dives were spent on natural reefs, and 4 percent of dives were spent on no reefs.

The number of person-days spent in each saltwater boating activity-boat mode was estimated as the total person-days reef-using boaters spent visiting the county in year 2000-2001 (from Table 6.2.1-3) times the proportion visitor days that these visitors spent participating in each activity-



boat mode. Then the number of person-days spent in each saltwater boating activity-boat mode was allocated to artificial and natural reefs based on either the proportion of days or the proportion of dives spent in that activity-boat mode on or near artificial versus natural reefs. Proportion of days was used for all activities except scuba diving and snorkeling where the proportion of dives was used to provide a more accurate indicator of reef use.

A summary of the total person-days visitors spent participating in reef-related recreation by type of activity and by type of reef in Monroe County is provided in Table 6.2.1-5. The total person-days visitors spent participating in each saltwater activity and boat mode by type of reef is provided in Table 6.2.1-6.

Visitors to Monroe County spent about 2.1 million person-days on the reef system from June 2000 to May 2001. About 478 thousand of these days were spent on artificial reefs and about 1.6 million of these days were spent on natural reefs.


By Recreation Activity – Monroe County Number of Person-Days

Activity Artificial Reefs Natural Reefs All Reefs Snorkeling 121,778 641,218 762,996 Scuba Diving 75,632 282,336 357,967 Fishing 277,349 603,549 880,899 Glass Bottom Boat Sightseeing 3,636 71,363 75,000 Total 478,395 1,598,467 2,076,862


The average itemized per person expenditures by those who participated in each activity and boat mode in Monroe County are provided in Table 6.2.2-1. Monroe County reef-using visitors who went saltwater fishing on their own boat, a friend’s boat or a rental boat spent, on average, $157 per person per day on the day that they went fishing. This amount is comprised of $28 for boat fuel, $21 for lodging, $11 in camping fees, $21 for food and beverages at stores and $22 for food and beverages at restaurants and bars and $17 for shopping, among other items.



Table 6.2.1-6 (Visitors) Number of Person-Days Visitors Spent Participating in

Saltwater Boating Activities and Reef Use - June 2000 to May 2001 Monroe County (Florida Keys)


Activity Boat Mode

Number of Person


Natural Reefs

No Reefs

Charter/Party 269,479 13,413 250,701 5,365 Rental 65,315 8,476 56,590 249 Snorkeling Private 465,424 99,889 333,928 31,607 Charter/Party 119,816 17,678 99,738 2,401 Rental 18,600 1,898 16,702 0 Scuba Diving Private 222,331 56,056 165,896 379 Charter 93,863 4,779 41,190 47,894 Party 110,300 5,616 48,403 56,281 Rental 35,902 10,097 21,317 4,488


Private 618,547 119,763 215,028 283,756 Charter/Party 18,167 0 0 18,167 Rental 9,084 0 0 9,084


Private 305,380 62,694 95,052 147,634 Charter 21,195 1,079 9,301 10,815 Party 24,223 1,233 10,630 12,360 Rental 15,572 4,152 7,786 3,633

Fishing Bottom

Private 467,587 67,935 154,842 244,810 Glass Bottom Boat 80,454 3,636 71,363 5,455 Back Country Excursion 15,572 0 0 15,572 Rental 50,608 0 0 50,608




Total Person-Days 3,710,416 478,394 1,598,467 1,633,554




Participating in Each Reef-Related Activity and Boating Mode Monroe County



Item

Own, Friend's or


Boat Party Boat Own, Friend's or Rental Boat




Auto Gas $8.21 $6.63 $3.56 $7.21 $4.55 Auto Rental $2.83 $14.80 $4.49 $4.47 $8.52 Equipment Rental $2.08 $1.18 $0.63 $0.44 $2.69 Shopping $16.68 $29.68 $30.73 $11.03 $19.11 Total $156.57 $284.99 $167.57 $142.23 $172.89 Number of Respondents 368 126 171 342 544 Number of Respondents and Party Membersc 1,468 394 484 1,463 1,888 Expenditures per person per day were estimated from the responses to the Visitor Boater Survey. For each Activity_Mode, the






The average expenditure of persons who fished on charter boats was $285 per person per day. About $95 was the cost of the charter boat while $50 was spent on lodging, $12 was spent in camping fees, $18 was spent on food and beverages at stores, $59 was spent on food and beverages at restaurants and bars, $15 was spent on auto rental, and $30 was spent on shopping.

Persons who fished on party boats spent, on average, $168 per person on the day they went fishing which included $41 for the party boat fee, $39 for lodging, $13 for food and beverages at stores, $33 for food and beverages at restaurants and bars, and $31 for shopping.

Monroe County reef-using visitors who went scuba diving or snorkeling on their own boat, a friend’s boat or a rental boat spent, on average, $142 per person per day on the day they went diving. This amount is comprised of $13 for boat fuel, $37 for lodging, $11 for camping fees, $19 for food and beverages at stores and $23 for food and beverages at restaurants and bars.

Visitors who went diving on charter or party boats spent, on average, $173 per person per day. This expenditure was comprised of $44 per day for the dive charter or party boat, $42 per day for lodging, $5 per day for camping fees, $12 per day for food and beverages at stores, $31 per day for food and beverages in restaurants and bars and $19 for shopping, among other items.

The expenditures per person per day were multiplied by the number of person-days by boating mode and reef type to obtain an estimate of the total expenditures associated with reef related activities. The itemized total expenditures associated with reef use in Monroe County in 2000-2001 are provided in Table 6.2.2-2. The expenditures associated with glass bottom boating days only included the fee per person per ride ($20). The other expenditures associated with the entire day spent in the county were not included for glass bottom boat riders because these visitors are likely in the county for other reasons either not reef-related or included in the other reef-related recreational activities.

Visitors who used the reefs in Monroe County spent $319 million on reef-related expenditures. Of this amount $73 million was associated with artificial reef-related expenditures and $245 million was associated with natural reef-related expenditures.

The reef-related visitor expenditures were then used to estimate the economic contribution of artificial and natural reefs to each of the counties. As discussed in the Introduction of the Report, expenditures by visitors generate income and jobs within the industries that supply reef-related goods and services, such as charter / party boat operations, restaurants and hotels. These industries are called direct industries. In addition, these expenditures create multiplier effects wherein additional income and employment is created as the income earned by the reef-related industries is re-spent within the county. These additional effects of reef-related expenditures are called indirect and induced. Indirect effects are generated as the reef-related industries purchase goods and services from other industries in the county. Induced effects are created when the employees of the direct and indirect industries spend their money in the county.



Table 6.2.2-2 (Visitors) Total Visitor Expenditures In Monroe County Associated with Reef Use


Item Artificial Reef Natural Reef Total Total Number of Person Days 478,395 1,598,467 2,076,862 Charter / Party Boat Fee $2,215,748 $22,752,503 $24,968,251 Boat Rental 1,335,356 4,601,477 5,936,833 Boat Fuel 9,391,142 20,866,226 30,257,368 Air Refills 294,492 1,417,735 1,712,226 Tackle 1,812,737 3,383,970 5,196,707 Bait 1,510,516 2,819,792 4,330,308 Ice 1,483,748 3,539,523 5,023,271 Ramp Fees 498,254 1,261,038 1,759,293 Marina Fees 2,321,536 5,850,565 8,172,101 Lodging 13,562,993 51,114,784 64,677,777 Camping Fees 4,989,991 14,348,964 19,338,955 Food and Beverages - Stores 9,326,234 27,085,778 36,412,012 Food and Beverages - Restaurants/Bars 11,142,883 39,515,821 50,658,705 Auto Gas 3,575,394 10,323,454 13,898,848 Auto Rental 1,875,831 7,959,339 9,835,170 Equipment Rental 718,651 2,319,993 3,038,643 Shopping 7,228,354 24,573,805 31,802,159 Glass Bottom Boat Ride 72,727 1,427,269 1,499,996 Total $73,356,586 $245,162,036 $318,518,623

While the IMPLAN Regional Input-Output Model was used to estimate economic contribution associated with the reef-related expenditures, for Monroe County, a different approach was used. This was due to concern that the IMPLAN model does not adequately capture the unique economy of this county. Relative to other counties in the nation, this economy is very dependent on imports and heavily dependent on one industry, tourism. Therefore, the approach used in Leeworthy (1996) was used. This approach utilized several ratios on economic measures for Monroe County derived from data published by the U.S. Census (1997 Economic Census) and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The analysis then utilized sales, income, and employment multipliers taken from a recent Monroe County economic study (Leeworthy, 1996) to estimate total (direct, indirect and induced) contributions to sales, income and employment from visitor expenditures associated with reef related activities. This method provides estimates of total direct, indirect and induced economic contributions for Monroe County and cannot provide a breakdown of direct versus indirect versus induced effects.



The economic contribution of the reefs to Monroe County is provided in Table 6.2.2-3. The sales contribution is defined as the value of the additional output produced in the county due to the reef-related expenditures. The total income contribution is defined as the sum of employee compensation, proprietor’s income, interest, rents, and profits generated as a result of the reef-related expenditures. Income is the money that stays in the county’s economy. The employment contribution is the number of full- time and part-time jobs created due to the reef-related expenditures.

Table 6.2.2-3 (Visitors) Economic Contribution of Reef-Related Expenditures by Visitors to Monroe County

Economic Area is Monroe County June 2000 to May 2001 – In 2000 dollars

Artificial Reefs Natural Reefs Total

Total Sales $82,159,376 $274,581,481 $356,740,857 Total Income $26,695,085 $94,168,665 $120,863,750 Total Employment 1,916 6,737 8,653

Reef-related expenditures by visitors to Monroe County during the period June 2000 to May 2001 resulted in $357 million in sales to county businesses. These sales generated $121 million in income and 8,700 jobs. About 22 percent of these values were the result of artificial reef-related expenditures and 78 percent of these values were the result of natural reef-related expenditures.

6.2.3 Use Value Use value is the maximum amount of money that reef users are willing to pay to maintain the reefs in their existing condition and to add more artificial reefs to the system. In this study, four types of use values were estimated: (1) the value to natural reef users of maintaining the natural reefs in their existing condition; (2) the value to artificial reef users of maintaining the artificial reefs in their existing condition; (3) the value to all reef users of maintaining artificial and natural reefs in their existing condition; and (4) the value to artificial reef users of adding and maintaining additional artificial reefs. Use value is presented in terms of per person per day of reef use and in aggregate for all users of the reef system.

The visitor reef-user values associated with maintaining the reefs in their existing conditions is provided in Table 6.2.3-1. Use value per person day means the value per person day of artificial, natural or all reef use, as specified in the table. The respondent was asked to state yes, no or don’t know to a specified payment to maintain the artificial reefs, the natural reefs and a combined program that would protect both types of reefs. The scenario provided to the respondent was as follows.

“Local and state government agencies are considering different approaches to maintaining the health and condition of the natural and artificial reefs in southeast



Florida. One plan focuses on providing greater protection for natural reefs by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to natural reefs from anchoring, and preventing overuse of the natural reefs. A second plan focuses on protecting the artificial reefs by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to artificial reefs from anchoring and preventing overuse of the artificial reefs.


Then the respondent was asked a yes or no question regarding the natural reef plan, the artificial reef plan and both plans. For example, the question regarding both plans read: “Suppose that both of the above plans to maintain the natural and artificial reefs in southeast Florida were put together in a combined program. Consider once again your total trip cost for your last trip to use the reefs in southeast Florida including travel expenses, lodging, and all boating expenses. If your total costs for this trip would have been $_____ higher, would you be willing to pay this amount to maintain the artificial and natural reefs?”



Data Represents June 2000 to May 2001 Visitor Reef-Users in Monroe County

Item All Reefs – Artificial

and Natural Artificial Reefs

Natural Reefs

Number of Person-Days of Reef Use 2,076,862 478,395 1,598,467

Use Value Per Person-Day ($2000) $17.19 $12.23 $22.35

Annual Use Value - ($2000) $38,673,282 $5,851,199 $35,719,677 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate ($2000)

$1,289,109,400 $195,039,967 $1,190,655,900

Values for all reefs were taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 38 of Visitor Boater Survey5: “Suppose that both of the above plans to maintain the natural and artificial reefs 5 For a complete description of the contingent valuation questions, please refer to the Visitor Boater Survey




in southeast Florida were put together into a combined program...If your total costs for this trip would have been $___ higher, would you have been willing to pay this amount to maintain the artificial and natural reefs.” Values for artificial reefs were taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 36 pertaining only to a program to maintain the existing artificial reefs in their current condition. Values for natural reefs were taken from statistical analysis of responses to Question 34 pertaining only to a program to maintain the natural reefs in the ir current condition.

Chapter 2.2.2 provides a general description of the procedures used to analyze the data and the procedures used to estimate the user values presented here. For a more technical discussion, please see the Technical Appendix to this document, which is a separate report. The Technical Appendix describes the methods used to derive the values presented here and provides alternative estimates using different methods. Here we present only the estimates of total annual use value, use value per person-day, and the asset value of the reefs derived using the Logit model.

The estimated use values are consistent with the idea that natural reefs are preferred to artificial reefs. For Monroe County visitors, the average use value per person-day of natural reef use was $22.35 versus $12.23 for artificial reef use. Total use is also higher for natural versus artificial reefs. Monroe County visitors’ natural reef use was almost 1.6 million person-days versus 478 thousand person-days for artificial reefs. This translated into an estimate of total annual use value of $35.7 million for natural reefs and $5.9 million for artificial reefs. Capitalizing the annual use values, using a three percent interest rate, yields asset values of about $1.2 billion for the natural reefs and $195 million for the artificial reefs.


The question combining the natural and artificial reef programs yielded estimates of value lower than that derived by adding-up the values of the natural and artificial reef programs separately. However, for Broward County residents this difference was not significant. This result is consistent with past research. Some respondents are not willing to pay the sum of the values of the individual programs to finance the combined programs. This is largely due to the income constraints as higher bid values are provided to the respondents under the combined programs. The value of the combined programs provides a conservative or lower bound estimate of the total natural and artificial reef values.



The capitalized value of reef use value is the present value of the annual values calculated at three percent discount rate. It represents the “stock” value analogous to land market values. The capitalized visitor reef user value associated with Monroe County reefs, both artificial and natural, is $1.3 billion. Bear in mind that this value only includes the value that visitor reef users place on the reefs and does not include the values that resident reef users and non-reef-users place on the reefs or the economic contribution of the reefs. The estimation of the value of reefs to non-reef users was not part of this study.

Reef users’ willingness to pay to invest in and maintain “new” artificial reefs is provided in Table 6.2.3-2. The use value per person-day is the value per day or a portion of a day of artificial reef use. In Monroe County, reef users are willing to pay $1.7 million annually for this program in Monroe County.


"New" Artificial Reefs in the County Visitor Reef-Users in Monroe County

Item Value Number of Person-Days of Artificial Reef Use 478,395 Use Value Per Person-Day for "New" Artificial Reefs ($2000) $3.60 Annual Use Values for "New" Artificial Reefs $1,724,324 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate ($2000) $57,477,467 Note: Use value per person-day is the use value per whole day or portion of a day of artificial reef use.

The value of reefs by reef type and activity type for Monroe County is provided in Table 6.2.3-3.



Table 6.2.3-3 (Visitors) Value of Reefs to Visitors to Monroe County, by Reef Type and Activity, 2000-2001



Natural Reefs 1,598,467 $35,719,677 $22.35 Snorkeling 641,218 $17,428,710 $27.18 Scuba Diving 282,336 $5,854,637 $20.74 Fishing 603,549 $10,479,512 $17.36 Glass Bottom Boats 71,363 $1,956,818 $27.42 Artificial Reefs 478,395 $5,851,199 $12.23 Snorkeling 121,778 $1,755,307 $14.41 Scuba Diving 75,632 $751,366 $9.93 Fishing 277,349 $3,290,720 $11.86 Glass Bottom Boats 3,636 $53,807 $14.80 Natural & Artificial Reefs 2,076,862 $38,673,282 $18.62 Snorkeling 762,996 $15,397,007 $20.18 Scuba Diving 357,967 $6,445,422 $18.01 Fishing 880,899 $15,141,356 $17.19 Glass Bottom Boats 75,000 $1,689,496 $22.53 New Artificial Reefs 478,395 $1,724,324 $3.60 Snorkeling 121,778 $356,746 $2.93 Scuba Diving 75,632 $425,167 $5.62 Fishing 277,349 $923,763 $3.33 Glass Bottom Boats 3,636 $18,648 $5.13

6.2.4 Demographic Information The Visitor Boater Survey asked the respondent questions regarding his/her socioeconomic characteristics so that a picture of the typical reef user could be developed. The results for Monroe County are summarized in Table 6.2.4-1.



Table 6.2.4-1 (Visitors) Demographic Characteristics of Visitor Reef-Users in Monroe County, 2000 Characteristic Value Median Age of Respondent – Years 44 Sex of Respondent

Male 70% Female 30%



6.3 Total – Residents and Visitors This section summarizes the user activities, economic contribution and use values associated with the artificial and natural reefs for both residents and visitors of Monroe County. Demographic information of both resident and visitor reef users is also provided.

6.3.1 User Activity The numbers of person-days spent using the reefs in Monroe County by reef type and population (residents and visitors) are summarized in Table 6.3.1-1. Visitors and residents spent 5.45 million person-days using artificial and natural reefs in Monroe County during the 12-month period from June 2000 to May 2001. Residents spent 3.37 million person-days and visitors spent 2.1 million person-days. Reef users spent 1.6 million person-days using artificial reefs and 3.9 million person-days using natural reefs. A summary of reef use by type of activity is provided in Table 6.3.1-2.




Natural Reefs in Monroe County Residents and Visitors – in millions

Population Artificial Reefs Natural Reefs All Reefs Residents 1.10 2.28 3.38 Visitors 0.48 1.60 2.08 Total 1.58 3.88 5.46

Table 6.3.1-2

Number of Person-Days Spent Using Reefs in Monroe County By Recreational Activity

Residents and Visitors – in millions Activity Residents Visitors Total Snorkeling 1.10 0.76 1.86 Scuba Diving 0.53 0.36 0.89 Fishing 1.74 0.88 2.62 Glass Bottom Boat - 0.075 0.075 Total 3.37 2.08 5.46 Note: Residents were not asked about their use of glass-bottom boats.

Reef diving and reef fishing are equally common in Monroe County. Snorkeling is more common than scuba diving. Fishing comprises 2.62 million person-days while scuba diving and snorkeling comprise 0.89 million person-days and 1.86 million person-days, respectively. Resident reef-related recreation comprises 61.8 percent of total reef-related recreation by residents and visitors in Monroe County. Residents spend significantly more days in snorkeling, scuba diving and fishing than do visitors.

6.3.2 Economic Contribution The total economic contribution of the reefs to Monroe County includes the contribution of reef expenditures to sales, income and employment. Expenditures by visitors generate income and jobs within the industries that supply reef-related goods and services, such as charter / party boat operations, restaurants and hotels. These industries are called direct industries. In addition, these visitor expenditures create multiplier effects wherein additional income and employment is created as the income earned by the reef-related industries is re-spent within the county. These additional effects of reef-related expenditures are called indirect and induced. Indirect effects are generated as the reef-related industries purchase goods and services from other industries in the county. Induced effects are created when the employees of the direct and indirect industries spend their money in the county.





The economic contributions of the artificial, natural and all reefs to Monroe County are provided in Tables 6.3.2-1 through 6.3.2-3. The sales contribution is defined as the value of the additional output produced in the county due to the reef-related expenditures. The total income contribution is defined as the sum of employee compensation, proprietor’s income, interest, rents, and profits generated as a result of the reef-related expenditures. The employment contribution is the number of full- time and part-time jobs created due to the reef-related expenditures.

Reef-related expenditures in Monroe County generated $504 million in sales during the 12-month period from June 2000 to May 2001. These sales resulted in $140 million in income to Monroe County residents and provided 9,984 jobs in Monroe County. Artificial reef-related expenditures accounted for 26 percent of the economic contribution of all reefs and natural reef-related expenditures accounted for 74 percent of the economic contribution.


to Monroe County June 2000 to May 2001 – In Millions of 2000 Dollars


Resident $49.35 $6.42 449 Visitord $51.35 $26.70 1,916 Total $100.70 $33.12 2,365

Indirectd $30.81 Induced Total $131.51 $33.12 2,365 a The direct contribution is the actual expenditures made in the county. b Total income includes employee compensation, proprietor's income, interest, rents and profits c Employment includes the number of full-time and part-time jobs. d For sales, both the indirect and induced contribution are included under indirect. For income

and employment, the direct, indirect and induced contributions are included under direct.






Resident $98.16 $12.73 882 Visitord $171.61 $94.20 6,737 Total $269.77 $106.93 7,619

Indirectd $102.97 Induced Total $372.74 $106.93 7,619 a The direct contribution is the actual expenditures made in the county. b Total income includes employee compensation, proprietor's income, interest, rents and profits c Employment includes the number of full-time and part-time jobs.

For sales, both the indirect and induced contribution are included under indirect. For income and employment, the direct, indirect and induced contributions are included under direct.




Resident $147.51 $19.15 1,331 Visitord $222.96 $120.90 8,653 Total $370.47 $140.05 9,984

Indirectd $133.78 $0 0 Induced $0 0 Total $504.25 $140.05 9,984 a The direct contribution is the actual expenditures made in the county. b Total income includes employee compensation, proprietor's income, interest, rents and profits c Employment includes the number of full-time and part-time jobs d For sales, both the indirect and induced contribution are included under indirect. For income

and employment, the direct, indirect and induced contributions are included under direct.



6.3.3 Use Value In this study, three types of use values were estimated: (1) the value of maintaining the natural reefs in their existing condition; (2) the value of maintaining the artificial reefs in their existing condition and (3) the value of adding and maintaining additional artificial reefs. In general, use value is the maximum amount of money that reef users are willing to pay to maintain the reefs in their existing condition and to add more artificial reefs to the system. Use value is measured in terms of per person per day of reef use and in aggregate for all users of the reef system.

The annual value Monroe County visitors and residents place on protecting the reefs in their existing condition and the associated capitalized value is presented in Table 6.3.3-1. The annual value visitor and resident reef-users place on investing in and maintaining “new” artificial reefs is presented in Table 6.3.3-2. These values were explained in Sections 6.1.3 and 6.2.3.



Monroe County, Florida Item Residents Visitors Total

All Reefs - Artificial and Natural Number of Person-Days of Reef Use (millions) 3.38 2.08 5.46

Use Value Per Person-Day $3.64 $17.19 $9.48 Annual Use Value - (million dollars) $13.11 $38.67 $51.78 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate (million dollars) $364 $1,289 $1,653

Artificial Reefs Number of Person-Days of Reef Use (millions) 1.10 0.48 1.58

Use Value Per Person-Day $3.54 $12.23 $6.18 Annual Use Value - (million dollars) $3.89 $5.85 $9.75 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate (million dollars) $129.8 $195.0 $324.8

Natural Reefs Number of Person-Days of Reef Use (millions) 2.28 1.60 3.88

Use Value Per Person-Day $9.48 $22.35 $14.83 Annual Use Value - (million dollars) $21.77 $35.72 $57.49 Capitalized Value @ 3 percent Discount Rate (million dollars) $726 $1,191 $1,916




Maintaining "New" Artificial Reefs Monroe County, Florida

Item Residents Visitors Total Number of Person-Days of Artificial Reef Use (millions)

1.10 0.48 1.58

Use Value Per Person-Day for "New" Artificial Reefs

$0.42 $3.60 $1.39

Annual Use Values for "New" Artificial Reefs (million dollars)

$0.47 $1.72 $2.19


$15.6 $57.5 $73.1

6.3.4 Demographic Information444 This section summarizes and compares the demographic characteristics of visitor and resident reef users. These characteristics were obtained from the resident boater survey and the visitor boater survey. They are summarized in Tables 6.3.4-1. A comparison of the demographics indicates that resident and visitors are very similar in terms of age, race, income, and membership in fishing and/or diving clubs.




Monroe County, 2000 Resident Reef-Users Visitor Reef-Users


Male 86% 14%



Race Of Respondent 94% .02% 5.8% 95% 2% 3% % of Resident Reef-Users % of Visitor Reef-Users

Percent Hispanic/Latino 7% 8%

Resident Reef-Users Visitor Reef-Users

Median Household Income $56,393 $87,500

Residents Visitors


22 7.4

Residents Visitors


24 22

Residents Visitors


15% 11%

Hwd:40289R037.doc B-1 Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida Final Report

Bibliography

Bell, Frederick W., Mark A. Bonn and Vernon R. Leeworthy, Economic Impact and Importance of Artificial Reefs in Northwest Florida, Office of Fisheries Management and Assistance Service, Florida Department of Environmental Administration, December, 1998. Bell, Frederick W. and Vernon R. Leeworthy, “Economic Demand for Marinas and Projected Impact on Wetlands”, Land Economics, Vol. 63, No. 1, February, 1986. Bohnsack, John A and A. Eckland and A.M. Szmant, “Artificial Reef Research: Is There More Than The Attraction Vs Production Issue? Fisheries 22: No. 4, April 1997. Clawson, Marion and J.L. Knetch, Economics of Outdoor Recreation, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1996. Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Revenue Report, July 1, 1999-June 2000, Tallahassee, Florida, 2001. Green, Trellis G., Compensating and Equivalent Variation of the Florida Saltwater TouristFishery, Dissertation, Florida State University, College of Social Sciences, Tallahassee, Florida, 1984. Grossman, G.D. and G.P. Jones and W. Seaman, Jr. “Do Artificial Reefs Increase Regional Fish Production? A Review of Existing Data”. Fisheries 22: No. 4. April 1997. Leeworthy, Vernon R. and J.M. Bowker, “Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay – Nonmarket Economic User Values of the Florida Keys/Key West.” Sponsored by National Ocean Service/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Monroe County Tourist Development Council, The Nature Conservancy – Florida Keys Initiative, The University of Georgia – College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, and the United States Forest Service. October 1997. Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Peter C. Wiley, “Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay – A Socioeconomic Analysis of the Recreation Activities of Monroe County Residents in the Florida Keys/Key West.” Sponsored by National Ocean Service/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Monroe County Tourist Development Council, The Nature Conservancy – Florida Keys Initiative, The University of Georgia – College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, and the United States Forest Service. August 1997. Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Peter C. Wiley, “Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay – Technical Appendix: Sampling Methodologies and Estimation Methods Applied to the Survey of Monroe County Residents.” Sponsored by National Ocean Service/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Monroe County Tourist Development Council, and The Nature Conservancy – Florida Keys Initiative. October 1997.

Bibliography

Hwd:40289R037.doc B-2 Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida Final Report

Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Peter C. Wiley, “Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay – Visitor Profiles: Florida Keys/Key West.” Sponsored by National Ocean Service/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Monroe County Tourist Development Council, The Nature Conservancy – Florida Keys Initiative, The University of Georgia – College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, and the United States Forest Service. November 1996. Leeworthy, Vernon R., “Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay –Technical Appendix: Sampling Methodologies and Estimation Methods applied to the Florida Keys/Key west Visitors Surveys.” Sponsored by National Ocean Service/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Monroe County Tourist Development Council, and The Nature Conservancy – Florida Keys Initiative. December 1996. Milon, Walter J., The Economic Benefits of Artificial Reefs: An Analysis of the Dade County, Florida Reef System, Florida Sea Grant Report Number 90, Florida Sea Grant Program, Gainesville, Florida, April, 1988. Pybas, Donald W., Atlas of Artificial Reefs in Florida-Fifth Edition. Florida Sea Grant Report SG-1, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 1997. Randall, A. and J.P. Hoehn, "Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation: Implications for Natural resources Damage Assessment," Staff paper 92-14, Department of Agriculatural Economics, Michigan State University, 1992. Turnbull, B. W., "The Empirical Distribution Function with Arbitrarily Grouped, Censored, and Truncated Data," J. Royal Statistical Soc. Ser. B 38, 290-295, 1976.

FL State University Department of Hospitality Administration College of Business 1 Champions Way, Suite 4100 Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2541 850.644.4787 FAX 850.644.5565 Fall, 2000 Dear Florida Boat Owner, Please find enclosed a boater's survey to be completed. You have been randomly selected from a list of Florida boat owners to participate in this study. Please place the completed survey in the enclosed postage-paid business reply envelope and return it at your earliest convenience. This study is very important to evaluate the socio-economic impact of artificial and natural reefs in your county. Your completing and returning this survey is vital to this study. Please be reminded that your responses are strictly confidential and will be combined with over 25,000 other responses. Upon completion of the survey, all mailing lists will be destroyed. This project is called the Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida being sponsored by the counties of Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe; the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This study will determine, in a comprehensive manner, the net economic value of the natural and artificial reef resources of southeast Florida to the users of these reefs and the local economies. This study is expected to demonstrate the importance of additional funding at the federal, State and local levels to protect our resources while promoting reef use. Your help is vital to this study and should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much for your participation. Dr. Mark A. Bonn Ph.D. Professor Florida State University 850-644-8244

Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida Resident Boater Survey 1

Please Continue I:\MB7\Projects\Scratch Wiley\SFL Main\GJREEFV2MailPBBMD.doc

1

______________________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION 1: Screening

1. Over the past 12 months, how many days have you used your boat for saltwater activities in your county of

residence? ______ (days)

2. While saltwater boating in your county of residence over the past 12 months, did you use the artificial or natural reefs for any recreational activities such as fishing, diving or snorkeling?

YES______ (If yes, please continue with the survey.)

NO ______ (If no, please return this uncompleted survey. It is very important that you return this survey.)

____________________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION 2: Activity Profile and Use of Reefs 3. Of the days spent saltwater boating in your county of residence over the past 12 months, how many of these days

were spent:

Saltwater fishing? ________ Snorkeling? ________ Scuba diving? ________ 4. Of the days spent saltwater fishing in your county of residence over the past 12 months, how many of these days

were spent fishing on:

Artificial reefs? ________ Natural reefs? ________ 5. If you spent a portion of your saltwater fishing days on both artificial and natural reefs, what percent of your

time do you usually spend on: Artificial reefs? ________ Natural reefs? ________ 6. Of the days you spent snorkeling in your county of residence over the past 12 months, how many different dives

were done on: Artificial reefs? ________ Natural reefs? ________

7. Of the days you spent scuba diving in your county of residence over the past 12 months, how many different

dives were done on: Artificial reefs? ________ Natural reefs? ________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

OMB Approval #0648-0410 Expires: 7/31/03 SURVEY ID# : ___________



2

______________________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION 3: Expenditures 8. How many other people living in your county of residence went with you on your last trip to go: Saltwater fishing? ________ Snorkeling? ________ Scuba diving? ________ 9. How many other people who are not residents of your county went with you on your last trip to go: Saltwater fishing? ________ Snorkeling? ________ Scuba diving? ________ 10. On your most recent saltwater fishing day, snorkeling day, and scuba diving day in your county of residence,

would you please indicate your best estimate of how much money you and your party spent in your county of residence?

Expenditures in your county of residence on most recent day

Expense Item Fishing Snorkeling Scuba Diving

Boat Oil and Gas $ $ $

Bait $ $ $

Tackle $ $ $

Ice $ $ $

Food & Beverages from stores $ $ $

Food & Beverages from Restaurants/Bars $ $ $

Gas for Auto $ $ $

Boat ramp fees & parking fees $ $ $

Marina slip rental & dockage fees $ $ $

Equipment rentals $ $ $

Sundries (sun screen, sickness pills, etc.) $ $ $

Any other items not mentioned above $ $ $

Number of people who spent or benefited from these expenditures

______________________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION 4: Value of Reefs 11. Southeast Florida includes Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. The Florida Keys are in

Monroe County. Over the past 12 months, how many boating trips have you made in southeast Florida to use the:

Natural reefs? ________ (# of trips). Artificial reefs? ________ (# of trips). 12. Suppose there was a plan to maintain the health and condition of natural reefs in southeast Florida. First,

consider your total costs for your last boating trip in southeast Florida including travel expenses, lodging, and all boating expenses. If your total costs for this trip would have been $________ higher, would you have been willing to pay this amount to maintain the natural reefs in their existing condition?

____ YES ____ NO



3

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ If you answered NO to the above question or you don’t know or you refuse to answer the question, please circle the one letter that best explains your reason for saying no or don’t know; or refusing to answer? A. A contribution of that amount is more than natural reefs are worth to me. B. I really don’t know how much natural reefs are worth to me. C. There are no problems with water quality or the natural reefs. D. There is not enough information to form a decision. E. I don’t understand or like the question. F. I already pay too much to government. G. Government waste should be reduced to pay for water quality protection and management of the natural reefs. H. Other (please explain): _____________________________________________________________ 13. Now suppose there was a plan to maintain the health and condition of artificial reefs in southeast Florida and

that this was the only plan you were asked to consider. Think about your total costs for your last boating trip in southeast Florida again including travel expenses, lodging, and all boating expenses. If your total costs for this trip would have been $ ________ higher, would you have been willing to pay this amount to maintain the artificial reefs in their existing condition?

____ YES ____ NO

If you answered NO to the above question or you don’t know or you refuse to answer the question, please circle the one letter that best explains your reason for saying no or don’t know; or refusing to answer? A. A contribution of that amount is more than artificial reefs are worth to me. B. I don’t really know how much artificia l reefs are worth to me. C. There are no problems with water quality or the artificial reefs. D. There is not enough information to form a decision. E. I don’t understand or like the question. F. I already pay too much to government. G. Government waste should be reduced to pay for water quality protection and management of the artificial reefs. H. Other (please explain): _____________________________________________________________ 14. Finally, suppose that both of these plans to maintain the existing condition of natural and artificial reefs in

southeast Florida were put together into a combined program. Consider once again your total costs for your last boating trip in southeast Florida including travel expenses, lodging, and all boating expenses. If your total costs for this trip would have been $________ higher, would you have been willing to pay this amount to maintain the natural and artificial reefs in their existing condition?

____ YES ____ NO

If you answered NO to the above question or you don’t know or you refuse to answer the question, please circle the one letter that best explains your reason for saying no or don’t know; or refusing to answer? A. A contribution of that amount is more than reefs are worth to me. B. I don’t really know how much reefs are worth to me. C. There are no problems with water quality or the reefs. D. There is not enough information to form a decision. E. I don’t understand or like the question. F. I already pay too much to government. G. Government waste should be reduced to pay for water quality protection and management of the reefs. H. Other (please explain): _____________________________________________________________


Thank You! I:\MB7\Projects\Scratch Wiley \SFL Main\GJREEFV2MailPBBMD.doc

4

______________________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION 5: No Take Area Opinions In July 1997, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary created 23 areas or zones in which the taking of anything is prohibited. The total area of this no take zone is 13.37 square miles. A no take zone is a designated area of the reef system in which nothing is to be taken from this area including fish and shellfish. 15. Do you support the currently designated “NO TAKE” zones in the Florida Keys?

____ YES ____ NO ____ Don’t Know ____ Refused

16. Would you support the creation of “NO TAKE” zones on some of the reefs in your county of residence?


17. What percentage of the coral or natural reefs in your county do you think would be a reasonable proportion to protect by giving them NO TAKE designation? __________(%)

SECTION 6: Demographics 18. How long have you been boating in south Florida? __________ (# years)

19. What is the length of your boat that you use for your saltwater activities? _____ (feet)

20. Are you a member of fishing or diving club? ____ YES ____ NO

21. In what year were you born? 19 ____

22. What is your zip code? __________ (five digits)

23. How long have you lived in this county? _____ (# years)

24. Are you: Male? ____ Female? ____

25. Are you Hispanic, Latino, or have Spanish origin? ____ YES ____ NO

26. Please circle the letter that best describes you?

a. White b. Black or African American c. American Indian or Alaska Native d. Asian

e. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

f. Other (please notify)_______________________

27. Please circle the letter of your highest education level?

a. Completed grades 1-9 b. Some high school c. High School graduate

d. Some college or vocational school e. College graduate f. Graduate or professional degree

28. Please circle the letter that corresponds to your estimated household income before taxes?

(a) less than $5,000 (f) $30,000 to 34,999 (k) $75,000 to $99,999

(b) $5,000 to $9,999 (g) $35,000 to $39,999 (l) $100,000 to $149,000

(c) $10,000 to $14,999 (h) $40,000 to $49,999 (m) $150,000 or more

(d) $15,000 to $24,999 (i) $50,000 to $59,000

(e) $25,000 to $29,999 (j) $60,000 to $74,999



1

____________________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION 1: Screening







were spent:






7. Of the days you spent scuba diving in your county of residence over the past 12 months, how many different


______________________________________________________________________________________________




2






Bait $ $ $

Tackle $ $ $

Ice $ $ $



Gas for Auto $ $ $







_________________________________________________________________________________________



3

______________________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION 4: Value of Reefs 11. Southeast Florida includes Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. The Florida Keys are in


Natural reefs? ________ (# of trips). Artificial reefs? ________ (# of trips).

Local and state government agencies are being asked to evaluate how users of artificial reefs value new artificial reefs. Artificial reef programs cost money. Suppose that the government proposed that all users of the artificial reefs would pay for all newly constructed reefs. Fishermen and divers with their own boats would pay for a decal as part of their boat registration and/or, if they used a charter/party boat or a rental boat (pay operation), they would pay for the costs through higher fees charged by the pay operation. The money would go into a trust fund that could only be used for the construction and maintenance of artificial reefs in southeast Florida. 12. Would you be willing to pay $ ________ per year when you renew your boat registration and/or the amount in higher fees to a charter/party boat or rental boat operation to fund this program?

____ YES ____ NO If you answered NO to the above question or you don’t know or you refuse to answer the question, please circle the one letter that best explains your reason for saying no or don’t know; or refusing to answer? A. A contribution of that amount is more than new artificial reefs are worth to me. B. I really don’t know how much new artificial reefs are worth to me. C. There are enough artificial reefs already. D. There is not enough information to form a decision. E. I don’t understand or like the question. F. The government should fund the artificial reef program out of general revenue and not a specific tax or fee. G. I already pay too much to the government. H. Government waste should be reduced to fund the artificial reef program. I. Other (please explain): _____________________________________________________________ SECTION 5: No Take Area Opinions In July 1997, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary created 23 areas or zones in which the taking of anything is prohibited. The total area of this no take zone is 13.37 square miles. A no take zone is a designated area of the reef system in which nothing is to be taken from this area including fish and shellfish. 13. Do you support the currently designated “NO TAKE” zones in the Florida Keys?


14. Would you support the creation of “NO TAKE” zones on some of the reefs in your county of residence?



______________________________________________________________________________________


Thank You! 4 I:\MB7\Projects\Scratch Wiley \SFL Main\GJREEFV3MailPBBMD.doc

______________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION 6: Demographics 16. How long have you been boating in south Florida? __________ (# years)











f. Other (please notify)_______________________


a. Completed grades 1-9 b. Some high school c. High School graduate

d. Some college or vocational school e. College graduate f. Graduate or professional degree



(b) $5,000 to $9,999 (g) $35,000 to $39,999 (l) $100,000 to $149,000

(c) $10,000 to $14,999 (h) $40,000 to $49,999 (m) $150,000 or more

(d) $15,000 to $24,999 (i) $50,000 to $59,000

(e) $25,000 to $29,999 (j) $60,000 to $74,999

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida Resident Boater Survey 2 – Monroe County

GJREEFV3MailMonroe.doc Please Continue 1

SECTION 1: Screening







were spent:






7. How many of these dives were done in the Sanctuary Preservation Areas or Ecological Reserves in the Florida

Keys National Marine Sanctuary? These areas are marked with yellow buoys.

__________ (number of dives) 8. Of the days you spent scuba diving in your county of residence over the past 12 months, how many different




__________ (number of dives) ______________________________________________________________________________________________









Bait $ $ $

Tackle $ $ $

Ice $ $ $



Gas for Auto $ $ $









___________________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION 4: Value of Reefs 13. Southeast Florida includes Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. The Florida Keys are in


Natural reefs? ________ (# of trips). Artificial reefs? ________ (# of trips). Local and state government agencies are being asked to evaluate how users of artificial reefs value new artificial reefs. Artificial reef programs cost money. Suppose that the government proposed that all users of the artificial reefs would pay for all newly constructed reefs. Fishermen and divers with their own boats would pay for a decal as part of their boat registration and/or, if they used a charter/party boat or a rental boat (pay operation), they would pay for the costs through higher fees charged by the pay operation. The money would go into a trust fund that could only be used for the construction and maintenance of artificial reefs in southeast Florida. 14. Would you be willing to pay $ ________ per year when you renew your boat registration and/or the amount in higher fees to a charter/party boat or rental boat operation to fund this program?



16. Would you support the creation of additional “NO TAKE” zones on some of the reefs in your county of residence? ____ YES ____ NO ____ Don’t Know ____ Refused

17. Would you support the creation of additional “NO TAKE” zones on some of the reefs in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade counties?



______________________________________________________________________________________














f. Other (please notify)_________________________


a. Completed grades 1-9 d. Some college or vocational school b. Some high school e. College graduate c. High School graduate f. Graduate or professional degree



(b) $5,000 to $9,999 (g) $35,000 to $39,999 (l) $100,000 to $149,000

(c) $10,000 to $14,999 (h) $40,000 to $49,999 (m) $150,000 or more

(d) $15,000 to $24,999 (i) $50,000 to $59,000

(e) $25,000 to $29,999 (j) $60,000 to $74,999

______________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________



SECTION 7: Importance 30. Please read each statement and rate the importance of each item as it contributes to an ideal recreation setting for the activities you did in the Florida Keys/Florida Bay Area. If an item does not apply, indicate by circling n/a (not applicable). Likewise, if you don’t know, circle dk (don’t know). 1=Not Important, 2=Somewhat Important, 3=Important, 4=Very Important, 5=Extremely Important (circle response) a. Clear water (high visibility) n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

b. Amount of living coral on the reefs n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

c. Public transportation n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

d. Parking n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

e. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to view n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

f. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to catch n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

g. Large numbers of fish n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

h. Opportunity to view large wildlife: n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5 (manatees, whales, dolphins, sea turtles)

i. Uncrowded conditions n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

j. Maps, brochures, and other tourist info n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

k. Boat ramps/launching facilities n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

l. Marina facilities n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

m. Directional signs, street signs, mile markers n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

n. Condition of roads and streets n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

o. Cleanliness of streets and sidewalks n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

p. Condition of bike paths, sidewalks, walking paths n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

q. Shoreline access n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

r. Designated swimming/beach areas n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

s. Quality of beaches n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

t. Service and friendliness of people n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

u. Historic preservation (landmarks, houses, etc) n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

v. Availability of public restrooms n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

w. Value for the price n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

x. Parks and specially protected areas n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

y. Mooring buoys near coral reefs n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5

___________________________________________________________________________________________________


Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida Resident Boater Survey

PLEASE CONTINUE 6

SECTION 8: Satisfaction 30. In the above section, you indicated the importance of a list of items to your recreation experiences. Now please read each of the items on this list and rate how satisfied you were with each at the places you did your activities in the Florida Keys/Florida Bay Area. If the item does not apply, indicate by circling n/a (not applicable). Likewise, if you don't know, circle dk (don't know). 1=Not Satisfied, 2=Somewhat Satisfied, 3=Satisfied, 4=Very Satisfied, 5=Extremely Satisfied (circle response)

a. Clear water (high visibility) n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5









j. Maps, brochures, and other tourist information n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5











u. Historic preservation (landmarks, houses, etc.) n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5







SECTION 1: Screening







were spent:








__________ (number of dives) 8. Of the days you spent scuba diving in your county of residence over the past 12 months, how many different




__________ (number of dives) ______________________________________________________________________________________________









Bait $ $ $

Tackle $ $ $

Ice $ $ $



Gas for Auto $ $ $









___________________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION 4: Value of Reefs 13. Southeast Florida includes Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. The Florida Keys are in


Natural reefs? ________ (# of trips). Artificial reefs? ________ (# of trips). Local and state government agencies are being asked to evaluate how users of artificial reefs value new artificial reefs. Artificial reef programs cost money. Suppose that the government proposed that all users of the artificial reefs would pay for all newly constructed reefs. Fishermen and divers with their own boats would pay for a decal as part of their boat registration and/or, if they used a charter/party boat or a rental boat (pay operation), they would pay for the costs through higher fees charged by the pay operation. The money would go into a trust fund that could only be used for the construction and maintenance of artificial reefs in southeast Florida. 14. Would you be willing to pay $ ________ per year when you renew your boat registration and/or the amount in higher fees to a charter/party boat or rental boat operation to fund this program?



16. Would you support the creation of additional “NO TAKE” zones on some of the reefs in your county of residence? ____ YES ____ NO ____ Don’t Know ____ Refused

17. Would you support the creation of additional “NO TAKE” zones on some of the reefs in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade counties?



______________________________________________________________________________________














f. Other (please notify)_________________________


a. Completed grades 1-9 d. Some college or vocational school b. Some high school e. College graduate c. High School graduate f. Graduate or professional degree



(b) $5,000 to $9,999 (g) $35,000 to $39,999 (l) $100,000 to $149,000

(c) $10,000 to $14,999 (h) $40,000 to $49,999 (m) $150,000 or more

(d) $15,000 to $24,999 (i) $50,000 to $59,000

(e) $25,000 to $29,999 (j) $60,000 to $74,999

______________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________



SECTION 7: Importance 30. Please read each statement and rate the importance of each item as it contributes to an ideal recreation setting for the activities you did in the Florida Keys/Florida Bay Area. If an item does not apply, indicate by circling n/a (not applicable). Likewise, if you don’t know, circle dk (don’t know). 1=Not Important, 2=Somewhat Important, 3=Important, 4=Very Important, 5=Extremely Important (circle response) a. Clear water (high visibility) n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5









j. Maps, brochures, and other tourist info n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5











u. Historic preservation (landmarks, houses, etc) n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5





___________________________________________________________________________________________________


Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida Resident Boater Survey

PLEASE CONTINUE 6

SECTION 8: Satisfaction 30. In the above section, you indicated the importance of a list of items to your recreation experiences. Now please read each of the items on this list and rate how satisfied you were with each at the places you did your activities in the Florida Keys/Florida Bay Area. If the item does not apply, indicate by circling n/a (not applicable). Likewise, if you don't know, circle dk (don't know). 1=Not Satisfied, 2=Somewhat Satisfied, 3=Satisfied, 4=Very Satisfied, 5=Extremely Satisfied (circle response)

a. Clear water (high visibility) n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5









j. Maps, brochures, and other tourist information n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5











u. Historic preservation (landmarks, houses, etc.) n/a dk 1 2 3 4 5





R:\40289\finalinstruments\BOAT_VISITOR_TALLY_REVISED.doc

BOATING VISITORS SURVEY SCREENER/TALLY SHEET

Interviewer: ___________________________ Interview Location (circle county): Palm Beach Broward Dade Monroe Site Location: _________________________ 1. Are you a permanent resident of (county of interview) ?

___ YES Thank you. We are only interviewing nonresidents of (county of interview). ( place tic mark in column 4) ___ NO Hand respondent WHITE CARD (Activities List). 2. Over the past 12 months, did you do any of the activities on the list in (County of interview) ? (place tic mark in column 5)

___ NO Thank you. We are only interviewing those that did boating activities. ___ YES 3. Did you do any boating activities on the artificial or natural reefs in the (County of interview) ?

____ NO Thank you. We are only interviewing reef users. (place tic mark in column 6)

____ YES 4. Are you ending your visit to (county of interview) today ?

NOTE: If person is a scuba diver and is flying or is leaving before noon the next day, Proceed with interview. ___ NO Thank you. We are only interviewing people at the end of their visit. (place tic mark in column

7)

___ YES 5. Will you participate in a 5-20 minute (average 15 minute interview about your visit to (county of interview) ?

___ NO Thank you. (place tic mark in column 8) If language Barrier, place tic mark in column 9.

R:\40289\finalinstruments\BOAT_VISITOR_TALLY_REVISED.doc

___ YES Go to Questionnaire. (place tic mark in column 10)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Site Date Time Period Permanent Resident

Non Boating

Non Reef User

Non Exit Visitor

Refusal Language Barrier

Interviewed

Boating Visitors Survey - Keys

OMB Approval #:0648-0410Expiration Date:7/31/2003

1

1. a) How many people are with you on your visit to (county of interview)(do not count the respondent)?_____________

# people1. b) How many of these people are not permanent residents of (county of interview)

_____________# people

2. How many of these people are 16 or older (do not include respondent)?_____________

# people3. Where is your primary residence?

__________________________ _________________ ___________ _____________ City or nearest city County State Zip Code

Country: ___________________________

Screening Criteria: 1) NOT a resident of county of interview.2) Engaged in saltwater boating activities in county of interview in the past 12 months.3) Meets Exit Condition

County of Interview (circle): Palm Beach Broward Dade Monroe

Interview Site: ________________________________

Survey number: _________

Date/time of interview:

________ __________ _______ Month Day Time

USACanadaMexicoCentral/South America

Austalia/OceaniaJapanOther Far EastUnited Kingdom

Other EuropeMiddle EastAfricaOther

HAND RESPONDENT YELLOW CARD AND ASK THEM TO READ PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT

4. a) On this trip, is (county of interview) the only destination?

YES Go to Q5. NO Go to Q4b.

4. b) Is (county of interview) your primary destination for this trip?

YES Go to Q5. NO Go to Q4c.

John A

John A

John A



2

4. c) Where did you last visit before coming to (county of interview)?


5. Look at Section 1 of the Yellow Card. How did you and those in your group who are not residents of(county of interview) get to (county of interview)? Please give the letters of all that apply. (Circle allthat apply)

A Automobile - private H Air - MarathonB Automobile - rental I Air - Key WestC Air - Miami J Air - other FloridaD Air - Ft Lauderdale/ Specify ______________

Hollywood K Cruise shipE Air - West Palm Beach L Own boatF Air - Tampa M OtherG Air - Orlando Specify ______________

6. a) On this trip to (county of interview), when did you first arrive

_______________ _______________ _______________ Month Day Time

6. b) When do you plan to leave?

_______________ _______________ _______________ Month Day Time

7. Including this trip, how many times have you visited (county of interview) in the last 12 months, thatis since (date last year)?

_____________# times

8. Including this trip, how many days have you spent in (county of interview) in the last 12 months?

_____________# days

9. How many overnight trips have you made to (county of interview) in the last 12 months?

_____________# overnight trips

10. How many nights are you spending in (county of interview) on this trip?_____________

# nightsIf Question 10 is zero, then go to Q12.



3

11. Please refer to the Yellow Card in Section 2 and tell me the number corresponding to where youstayed on this trip to (county of interview)? (circle)

1 = Hotel/Motel/Guest House/ 4 = Condominium, or second home (own), Bed & Breakfast excluding time shares2 = Home of family/friends 5 = Vacation Rental3 = Campground 6 = Time Share

I would now like to ask you about some of the activities in which you or someone in your group who isnot a permanent resident of (county of interview), participated while on your visits to (county of inter-view).

HAND RESPONDENT WHITE CARD WITH ACTIVITIES LIST

Q12. In which of these activities did you or someone in your group participate during the last 12months in (county of interview)? Please read me the number corresponding to each activity onthe card.

Q13. As I read you each activity in which you said you or someone in your group participated, pleasetell me which activity you participated in during the past 12 months in (county of interview).If person by themselves, skip to Q15.

Q14. As I read each activity, please tell me how many others in your group who are not permanentresidents of (county of interview) participated in the activity in (county of interview) during thelast 12 months.

Q15. As I read each activity, would you tell me how many days you participated in the activity in(county of interview) over the past 12 months?

Q16. How many of the days of (activity) were on artificial reefs?Q17. How many of the days of (activity) were on natural reefs?If no DIVING OR SNORKELING activities, skip to Q21.Don’t ask Q18-Q20 for special snorkeling or scuba diving (activities 300-305).Q18. Over the past 12 months, in the (county of interview), how many dives did you make (read

activity - snorkeling or scuba diving; a dive is a water entry and exit.)?Q19. How many of these dives were on artificial reefs (for each snorkeling and scuba diving activity)?Q20. How many of these dives were on natural reefs (for each snorkeling and scuba diving activity)?

Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19Q12 Q13 Q14 Respondent # of days # of days Respondent Resp # dives Resp # dives

Ac t i v i t y Resp # Others # of days artificial reef natural reef # of dives artificial reef natural reef

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Q20

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A



4

For the Florida Keys Only - Divers and Glass-bottom Boat Riders Only.For Others Skip to Question 24.

The map of the Florida Keys show the Sanctuary preservation Areas and Ecological Reserves currentlyin place. These areas are marked by yellow buoys. These areas only allow non-consumptive activitiessuch as snorkeling, scuba diving and viewing. No one is allowed to take anything from these areas.

Q 21. Over the past 12 months, did you participate in any of your activities in any of these areas?

YES NO (Go to Q24)

Could you please refer to the White Card and tell me which activities which you participated in, in thesespecial areas?

Q22. How many dives did you make in these areas for snorkeling and Scuba Diving? ___________# dives

Q23. a) How many boat rides did you make to these areas? ___________# boat rides

Q23. b) On average, how many of these areas did you visit on each boat ride?

Q22/Q23a Q23b Activity Dives/Rides Areas Visited___ ___ ___ _________ ______________ ___ ___ _________ ______________ ___ ___ _________ ______________ ___ ___ _________ ______________ ___ ___ _________ ___________

Q24. Please refer to section 3 on your Yellow Card and tell me which reason best describes yourprimary purpose of your trip to (county of interview). Please read the letter from the YellowCard.

A Recreation or vacationB Visit family or friendsC Business tripD Business and pleasureE Other (specify) ___________________

For Snorkeling and Scuba Diving

John A



5

Q25. On the most recent saltwater fishing day using your own or a friend’s boat, approximately howmuch money did your party spend on the following items in (county of interview):

Q26. On the most recent saltwater fishing day using a rental boat, approximately how muchdid your party spend on the following items in (county of interview):

Q25 Q26 Own/Friend's Rental

Boat BoatBoat fuel $ ___________ $ ___________Tackle $ ___________ $ ___________Bait $ ___________ $ ___________Ice $ ___________ $ ___________Ramp fees $ ___________ $ ___________Marine fees $ ___________ $ ___________Lodging $ ___________ $ ___________Camping fees $ ___________ $ ___________Food and beverages - stores $ ___________ $ ___________Food and beverages - restaurants/bars $ ___________ $ ___________Auto gas $ ___________ $ ___________Auto rental $ ___________ $ ___________Equipment rental $ ___________ $ ___________Shopping (clothing, gifts, souvenirs) $ ___________ $ ___________Number of People in party who spent or benefited from this money (overall) # ___________ # ___________

Ask Q26 if they participated in fishing from a rental boat (activities 402, 405, or 409).

Ask Q25 if they participated in fishing from own boat or a friend’s boat (activities 403, 406 or 410).

John A

John A

John A



6

Q27. On the most recent saltwater fishing day using a charter boat, approximately how much did yourparty spend on the following items in (county of interview):

Q28. On the most recent saltwater fishing day using a party boat (charge per person), approximatelyhow much did your party spend on the following items in (county of interview):

Q27 Q28 Charter Party Boat Boat

Charter fee $ ___________ $ ___________Lodging $ ___________ $ ___________Camping fees $ ___________ $ ___________Food and beverages - stores $ ___________ $ ___________Food and beverages - restaurants/bars $ ___________ $ ___________Auto gas $ ___________ $ ___________Auto rental $ ___________ $ ___________Equipment rentals $ ___________ $ ___________Shopping (clothing, gifts, souvenirs) $ ___________ $ ___________Number of people in party who spent or benefited from this money (overall) # ___________ # ___________

Ask Q27 if they participated in fishing from a charter boat (activities 400, 404 charter, or 407).

Ask Q28 if they participated in fishing from a party boat (activities 401, 404 party, or 408).

John A

John A

John A



7

Ask Q29 if they participated in snorkeling or scuba diving from their ownor a friends boat (activities 102 or 202).

Ask Q30 if they participated in snorkeling or scuba diving froam a rental boat (activities 101,201)

Q29. On the most recent saltwater snorkeling or scuba diving day using your own or a friends boat,approximately how much did your party spend on the following items in (county of interview):

Q30. On the most recent saltwater snorkeling or scuba diving day using a rental boat, approximatelyhow much did your party spend on the following items in (county of interview):


Boat BoatBoat rental $ XXXXXXXX $ ___________Boat fuel $ ___________ $ ___________Air refills $ ___________ $ ___________Ice $ ___________ $ ___________Ramp fees $ ___________ $ ___________Marina fees $ ___________ $ ___________Other equipment rentals $ ___________ $ ___________Lodging $ ___________ $ ___________Camping fees $ ___________ $ ___________Food and Beverages - Stores $ ___________ $ ___________Food and Beverages - restaurants/bars $ ___________ $ ___________Auto gas $ ___________ $ ___________Auto rental $ ___________ $ ___________Shopping (clothing, gifts, souvenirs) $ ___________ $ ___________Number of people in party who spent or benefited from this money (overall) # ___________ # ___________

John A

John A

John A



8

Q31. On the most recent saltwater snorkeling or scuba diving day using a charter/party boat,approximately how much did your party spend on the following items in (county of interview):

Q31 Charter/Party

BoatCharter/party boat fee $ ___________Equipment rental $ ___________Air refills $ ___________Ice $ ___________Ramp fees $ ___________Marina fees $ ___________Lodging $ ___________Camping fees $ ___________Food and Beverages - Stores $ ___________Food and Beverages - restaurants/bars $ ___________Auto gas $ ___________Auto rental $ ___________Shopping (clothing, gifts, souvenirs) $ ___________Number of people in party who spent or benefited from this money # ___________

Now I would like to ask you a few questions about how you value both the artificial and natural reefs inSoutheast Florida.

CONTINGEN T VALU ATION QUESTIONS

Q32. Over the past 12 months, how many trips have you made to Southeast Florida on which you usedthe natural reefs?

______________ (# trips)

Q33. Over the past 12 months, how many trips have you made to Southeast Florida on which you usedthe artificial reefs?

______________ (# trips)

Ask Q31 if they participated in snorkeling or scuba diving froam a charter/party boat (activities 100,200)

John A



9

Hand respondent BLUE CARD.

Could you take a minute and read the information in Section 1 on the BLUE CARD about the plans.

Now I would like to ask you only about a plan to maintain the health and condition of the natural reefsin Southeast Florida.

34. First, consider your total trip costs for your last trip to use the natural reefs of Southeast Florida,including travel expenses, hotel and campsites fees, food and drink, and all other expenses. If yourtotal costs for this trip would have been $_____ higher, would you have been willing to pay thisamount to maintain the natural reefs ?

Please keep in mind that the added costs would have been used to make sure the water quality and healthof the natural reefs would have been maintained in their current condition. Also, keep in mind thatinstead of using the natural reefs in Southeast Florida, you could have used the artificial reefs, gone toplaces other than Southeast Florida or spent this money on other things.

___ YES (Go to Question 36) ____ Don’t Know (Go to Question 35)___ NO (Go to Question 35) ____ Refused (Go to Question 35)

35. Please refer to Section 2 on the BLUE CARD and indicate the letter that best describes yourreason for saying no, don’t know or refusing. Write-in any other reason.

(circle): A B C D E F G H _______________________

Now we would like to evaluate the artificial reef plan.

36. Considering your total trip costs for your last trip to use the artificial reefs in Southeast Florida,including travel expenses, hotel and campsites fees, food and drink, and all other expenses. If yourtotal costs for this trip would have been $_____ higher, would you have been willing to pay thatamount to maintain the artificial reefs ?

Please keep in mind that the added costs would have been used to make sure the water quality and healthof the fish and sea life on the artificial reefs would have been maintained in their current condition.Also, keep in mind that instead of using the artificial reefs of Southeast Florida, you could have used thenatural reefs, gone to places other than Southeast Florida or spent this money on other things.


37. Please refer to Section 3 on the BLUE CARD and indicate the letter that best describes yourreason for saying no, don’t know or refusing.



10

(circle): A B C D E F G H ______________________

38. Suppose that both of the above plans to maintain the natural and artificial reefs in Southeast Floridawere put together in a combined program. Consider once again your total trip costs for your last tripto use the reefs in Southeast Florida including travel expenses, lodging, and all boating expenses. Ifyour total costs for this trip would have been $ ____ higher, would you have been willing to pay thisamount to maintain the artificial and natural reefs ?



(circle): A B C D E F G H _____________________

Could you take a minute and read Section 5 of the blue Card on the Artificial Reef Program for NewReefs.

40. Would you be willing to pay $ ____ per year when you renew your boat registration and/or thatamount in higher fees to charter/party boat or rental boat operations to fund this program ? Theamount paid would go to fund new artificial reefs in Southeast Florida.

Please keep in mind that this amount would be in addition to the costs above for maintaining the currentartificial reefs and protecting the water quality. Also, keep in mind that instead of using the artificialreefs in Southeast Florida, you could have used the natural reefs, gone to places other than SoutheastFlorida or spent this money on other things.

___ YES (Go to Question 42) ___ Don’t Know (Got to Question 41)___ NO (Go to Question 41) ___ Refused (Go to Question 41)

41. Please refer to Section 6 on the BLUE CARD and read me the letter that best describes your reasonfor saying no, don’t know or refusing.

(circle): A B C D E F G H _______________________

Q42. How long have you been boating in South Florida? _____________# years

Q43. a) Do you own your own boat?

YES Go to Q43b NO Go to Q44



11

Q43. b) What is the length of your boat? _________ feet.

Q43. c) Where is it registered?

_____________ _____________ County State

Q44. Are you a member of a fishing or diving club?

YES NO

Q45. In what year were you born? 19 ___ ___

Q46. Sex: Male Female (Observed, not asked)

Q47. Are you Hispanic, Latino or of Spanish origin?

YES NO

Q48. Please refer to section 4 of the Yellow Card and tell me which category best describes you?Please read the letter of the category.

Circle A White D Native Hawaiian or Pacific IslanderB Black or African American E AsianC American Indian or F Other (specify) ________________

Alaska Native

Q49. Please refer to section 5 of the Yellow Card and tell me which income category best describesyour annual household income last year, before taxes. Please give me the letter on the card thatcorresponds to the category.

Q50. a) During this trip to (county of interview), were you giving up any income earning activi-ties?

YES NO

Q55. b) How much income, before taxes, do you estimate you lostduring this trip to (county of interview)? $_____________

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n

Refused

Don’t know

o



12

IF NOT MONROE COUNTY,This concludes your interview. Thank you for your time.

We have a short questionnaire on items we would like you to rate.

Please take this questionnaire and after you complete it return it to us by mail. Postage is prepaid

Accept questionnaire

Refuse

Interviewer: Code on-site survey identification number on questionnaire

Please get their telephone number for purposes of follow-up.

__________________________ Telephone number. Refused

FOR MONROE COUNTY ONLY

YELLOW CARD

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT

Your participation is voluntary. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is requiredto respond to nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection ofinformation subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless the collection ofinformation displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Since each interviewed person will represent many others not interviewed, your cooperation isextremely important. This study is being conducted by Hazen & Sawyer and the Florida StateUniversity for the State of Florida, Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties and theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Uses of the information include evaluation ofpresent recreation uses and planning for future recreation visitation. At the end of the study anymaterials identifying you, such as name, address or telephone number will be destroyed. All otherinformation is available for distribution.

Section 1. Modes of Transportation

A Automobile – private H Air – MarathonB Automobile – rental I Air – Key WestC Air – Miami J Air – other FloridaD Air – Ft. Lauderdale/ Specify_______ _____________

Hollywood K Cruise shipE Air – West Palm Beach L Own boatF Air – Tampa M OtherG Air – Orlando Specify_______ _____________

Section 2. Overnight Accommodations

1 = Hotel/motel/Guest House/ 4 = Condominium or second home (own),Bed & Breakfast excluding time shares

2 = Home of family/friends 5 = Vacation rental3 = Campground 6 = Time Share

Section 3. Primary Purpose of Trip

A = Recreation or Vacation D = Business and PleasureB = Visit family or friends E = Other (Specify)C = Business trip

Section 4. Race/Ethnicity

A. WhiteB. Black or African AmericanC. American Indian or Alaska NativeD. AsianE. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific IslanderF. Other

----OVER-------

YELLOW CARD

Section 4. Annual Household Income before TaxesPlease give only the letter of your income category.

A Less than $5,000 I $40,000 to $44,999B $5,000 to $9,999 J $45,000 to $49,999C $10,000 to $14,999 K $50,000 to $59,999D $15,000 to $19,999 L $60,000 to $74,999E $20,000 to $24,999 M $75,000 to $99,999F $25,000 to $29,999 N $100,000 to $149,999G $30,000 to $34,999 O $150,000 or moreH $35,000 to $39,999

WHITE CARD

ACTIVITIES LIST

Number Activities by Boat in Saltwater

Snorkeling100 Snorkeling from charter/party boat (pay operation)101 Snorkeling from Rental boat102 Snorkeling from private boat (own boat/friend's boat)

Scuba Diving200 Scuba diving from charter/party boat (pay operation)201 Scuba diving from rental boat202 Scuba diving from private boat (own boat/friend's boat)

Special Activities while Snorkeling or Scuba Diving300 Diving for lobsters301 Underwater photography302 Wreck diving303 Spear fishing304 Collecting tropical fish or shellfish305 Current/drift diving

Fishing - Offshore/Trolling400 Fishing from charter boat (pay operation six persons or less) - offshore401 Fishing from party or head boat (charge per person) - off shore402 Fishing from rental boat - offshore403 Fishing from private boat (own boat/friend's boat) - offshore

Fishing - Flats or Back Country404 Fishing from Charter/party boat (pay operation) - flats or back country405 Fishing from rental boat - flats or back country406 Fishing from private boat (own boat/friend's boat) - flats or back country

Fishing - Bottom407 Bottom fishing from charter boat (pay operation six persons or less)408 Bottom fishing from party or head boat (charge per person)409 Bottom fishing from rental boat410 Bottom fishing from private boat (own boat/friend's boat)

Viewing Nature and Wildlife500 Glass bottom boat rides (pay operation)501 Back country boating excursions (pay operation/guided service/NOT FISHING)502 Viewing nature and wildlife from rental boat503 Viewing nature and wildlife from private boat (own boat/friend's boat)

Personal Watercraft (jet skis, wave runners, etc.)600 Personal watercraft - rental601 Personal watercraft - private (own boat/friend's boat)

Sailing700 Sailing charter/party boat (pay operation)701 Sailing rental boat702 Sailing private boat (own boat/friend's boat)

Other Activities NOT MENTIONED ABOVE (parasailing, hang gliding, sunset cruises,water-skiing)

800 Other activities from charter/party (pay operation)801 Other activities from rental boat802 Other activities from private boat (own boat/friend's boat)

40289z-02.cdr

Florida Keys National Marine SanctuarySanctuary Preservation Areas and Ecological Reserves

Carysfort/SouthCarysfortReefTheElbow

DryRocksGrecianRocks

FrenchReef

HenandChickens

CheecaRocks

NewfoundHarborKey

WesternSambos

SandKey

RockKey

EasternDryRocks

AlligatorReef

CoffinsPatch

SombreroKey

LooeKey

DavisReef

ConchReefMolassesReef

SPAsandERs

Sanctuaryboundary

BLUE CARD

OMB APPROVAL #: EXPIRATION DATE:

R:\40289\Deliverable1\BLUE_CARD_CV_Revised.doc 1

SECTION 1. REEF PLANS Local and state government agencies are considering different approaches to maintaining the health and condition of natural and artificial reefs in Southeast Florida. One plan focuses on providing greater protection for natural reefs by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to natural reefs from anchoring, and preventing overuse of the natural reefs. A second plan focuses on protecting the artificial reefs by maintaining water quality, limiting damage to artificial reefs from anchoring, and preventing overuse of the artificial reefs. Both of these plans will involve increased costs to local businesses that will ultimately be passed on to both residents and visitors in Southeast Florida. We are doing this survey because local government agencies want to know whether you support one, both, or none of these plans and if you would be willing to incur higher costs to pay for these plans. Please keep in mind that whether you support these plans or not would not have any effect on your ability to participate in any boating activity or other recreation in Southeast Florida. SECTION 2. REASONS FOR SAYING NO, DON’T KNOW OR REFUSAL Please give the letter corresponding to the answer that best describes your reason. A A contribution of that amount is more than natural reefs are worth to me. B I don’t really know how much an natural reefs are worth to me. C There are no problems with water quality or the natural reefs. D Not enough information to form a decision. E I don’t understand or like the question. F Already pay too much to the government. G Government waste should be reduced to pay for water quality protection and

management of the natural reefs. H Other Reason (Please Specify)__________________________ SECTION 3. REASONS FOR SAYING NO, DON’T KNOW OR REFUSAL Please read the letter of the answer that best describes your reason. A A contribution of that amount is more than the artificial reefs are worth to me. B I don’t really know how much artificial reefs are worth to me. C Water quality is not a problem and artificial reefs don’t need any management. D Not enough information to form a decision. E I don’t understand or like the question. F Already pay too much to the government. G Government waste should be reduced to fund water quality protection and

management of the artificial reefs. H Other Reason (Please Specify)__________________________

BLUE CARD

OMB APPROVAL #: EXPIRATION DATE:

R:\40289\Deliverable1\BLUE_CARD_CV_Revised.doc 2

SECTION 4. REASONS FOR SAYING NO, DON’T KNOW OR REFUSAL Please read the letter of the answer that best describes your reason. A A contribution of that amount is more than the reefs are worth to me. B I don’t really know how much reefs are worth to me. C Water quality is not a problem and the reefs don’t need any management. D Not enough information to form a decision. E I don’t understand or like the question. F Already pay too much to the government. G Government waste should be reduced to fund water quality protection and

management of the reefs. H Other Reason (Please Specify)__________________________ SECTION 5. ARTIFICIAL REEF PROGRAM - NEW REEFS Artificial reef programs cost money. Suppose that the government proposed that all newly constructed reefs would be paid for by all users of the artificial reefs. Fishermen and divers with their own boats would pay for a decal as part of their boat registration and/or, if they used a charter/party boat (pay operation) or a rental boat, they would pay for the costs through higher fees charged by the pay operation. How would the money be used ? The money would go into a trust fund that could only be used for the construction and maintenance of artificial reefs in Southeast Florida. SECTION 6. REASONS FOR SAYING NO, DON’T KNOW OR REFUSAL A A contribution of that amount is more than a new artificial reef is worth to me. B I don’t really know how much an artificial reef is worth to me. C There are enough artificial reefs already. D Not enough information to form a decision. E I don’t understand or like the question. F The government should fund the artificial reef program out of general revenue and

not a specific tax or fee. G Already pay too much to the government. H Government waste should be reduced to fund the artificial reef program. I Other Reason (Please Specify)__________________________

Boating Visitors Survey - Not Keys


1

1. a) How many people are with you on your visit to (county of interview)(do not count the respondent)?_____________

# people1. b) How many of these people are not permanent residents of (county of interview)

_____________# people




Country: ___________________________

Screening Criteria: 1) NOT a resident of county of interview.2) Engaged in saltwater boating activities in county of interview in the past 12 months.3) Meets Exit Condition

County of Interview (circle): Palm Beach Broward Dade Monroe

Interview Site: ________________________________

Survey number: _________


________ __________ _______ Month Day Time




HAND RESPONDENT YELLOW CARD AND ASK THEM TO READ PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT

4. a) On this trip, is (county of interview) the only destination?

YES Go to Q5. NO Go to Q4b.

4. b) Is (county of interview) your primary destination for this trip?

YES Go to Q5. NO Go to Q4c.

John A

John A

John A



2

4. c) Where did you last visit before coming to (county of interview)?


5. Look at Section 1 of the Yellow Card. How did you and those in your group who are not residents of(county of interview) get to (county of interview)? Please give the letters of all that apply. (Circle allthat apply)



6. a) On this trip to (county of interview), when did you first arrive

_______________ _______________ _______________ Month Day Time

6. b) When do you plan to leave?

_______________ _______________ _______________ Month Day Time

7. Including this trip, how many times have you visited (county of interview) in the last 12 months, thatis since (date last year)?

_____________# times


_____________# days



10. How many nights are you spending in (county of interview) on this trip?_____________

# nightsIf Question 10 is zero, then go to Q12.



3

11. Please refer to the Yellow Card in Section 2 and tell me the number corresponding to where youstayed on this trip to (county of interview)? (circle)


I would now like to ask you about some of the activities in which you or someone in your group who isnot a permanent resident of (county of interview), participated while on your visits to (county of inter-view).

HAND RESPONDENT WHITE CARD WITH ACTIVITIES LIST

Q12. In which of these activities did you or someone in your group participate during the last 12months in (county of interview)? Please read me the number corresponding to each activity onthe card.

Q13. As I read you each activity in which you said you or someone in your group participated, pleasetell me which activity you participated in during the past 12 months in (county of interview).If person by themselves, skip to Q15.

Q14. As I read each activity, please tell me how many others in your group who are not permanentresidents of (county of interview) participated in the activity in (county of interview) during thelast 12 months.

Q15. As I read each activity, would you tell me how many days you participated in the activity in(county of interview) over the past 12 months?

Q16. How many of the days of (activity) were on artificial reefs?Q17. How many of the days of (activity) were on natural reefs?If no DIVING OR SNORKELING activities, skip to Q21.Don’t ask Q18-Q20 for special snorkeling or scuba diving (activities 300-305).Q18. Over the past 12 months, in the (county of interview), how many dives did you make (read

activity - snorkeling or scuba diving; a dive is a water entry and exit.)?Q19. How many of these dives were on artificial reefs (for each snorkeling and scuba diving activity)?Q20. How many of these dives were on natural reefs (for each snorkeling and scuba diving activity)?

Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19Q12 Q13 Q14 Respondent # of days # of days Respondent Resp # dives Resp # dives

Ac t i v i t y Resp # Others # of days artificial reef natural reef # of dives artificial reef natural reef

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Q20

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A

John A



Q25. On the most recent saltwater fishing day using your own or a friend’s boat, approximately howmuch money did your party spend on the following items in (county of interview):

Q26. On the most recent saltwater fishing day using a rental boat, approximately how muchdid your party spend on the following items in (county of interview):

Q25 Q26 Rental Own/Friend's

Expenditures on Most RecentSaltwater Fishing Day

(only in county of interview)

Boat BoatBoat fuel $ ___________ $ ___________Tackle $ ___________ $ ___________Bait $ ___________ $ ___________Ice $ ___________ $ ___________Ramp fees $ ___________ $ ___________Marine fees $ ___________ $ ___________Lodging $ ___________ $ ___________Camping fees $ ___________ $ ___________Food and beverages - stores $ ___________ $ ___________Food and beverages - restaurants/bars $ ___________ $ ___________Auto gas $ ___________ $ ___________Auto rental $ ___________ $ ___________Equipment rental $ ___________ $ ___________Shopping (clothing, gifts, souvenirs) $ ___________ $ ___________Number of People in party who spent or benefited from this money (overall) # ___________ # ___________

Ask Q26 if they participated in fishing from a rental boat (activities 402, 405, or 409).

Ask Q25 if they participated in fishing from own boat or a friend’s boat (activities 403, 406 or 410).

4

Q24. Please refer to section 3 on your Yellow Card and tell me which reason best describes yourprimary purpose of your trip to (county of interview). Please read the letter from the YellowCard.

A Recreation or vacationB Visit family or friendsC Business tripD Business and pleasureE Other (specify) ___________________



5

Q27. On the most recent saltwater fishing day using a charter boat, approximately how much did yourparty spend on the following items in (county of interview):

Q28. On the most recent saltwater fishing day using a party boat (charge per person), approximatelyhow much did your party spend on the following items in (county of interview):

Q27 Q28 Charter Party Boat Boat

Charter fee $ ___________ $ ___________Lodging $ ___________ $ ___________Camping fees $ ___________ $ ___________Food and beverages - stores $ ___________ $ ___________Food and beverages - restaurants/bars $ ___________ $ ___________Auto gas $ ___________ $ ___________Auto rental $ ___________ $ ___________Equipment rentals $ ___________ $ ___________Shopping (clothing, gifts, souvenirs) $ ___________ $ ___________Number of people in party who spent or benefited from this money (overall) # ___________ # ___________

Ask Q27 if they participated in fishing from a charter boat (activities 400, 404 charter, or 407).

Ask Q28 if they participated in fishing from a party boat (activities 401, 404 party, or 408).

John A

John A

John A



6

Ask Q29 if they participated in snorkeling or scuba diving from their ownor a friends boat (activities 102 or 202).

Ask Q30 if they participated in snorkeling or scuba diving froam a rental boat (activities 101,201)

Q29. On the most recent saltwater snorkeling or scuba diving day using your own or a friends boat,approximately how much did your party spend on the following items in (county of interview):

Q30. On the most recent saltwater snorkeling or scuba diving day using a rental boat, approximatelyhow much did your party spend on the following items in (county of interview):


Boat BoatBoat rental $ XXXXXXXX $ ___________Boat fuel $ ___________ $ ___________Air refills $ ___________ $ ___________Ice $ ___________ $ ___________Ramp fees $ ___________ $ ___________Marina fees $ ___________ $ ___________Other equipment rentals $ ___________ $ ___________Lodging $ ___________ $ ___________Camping fees $ ___________ $ ___________Food and Beverages - Stores $ ___________ $ ___________Food and Beverages - restaurants/bars $ ___________ $ ___________Auto gas $ ___________ $ ___________Auto rental $ ___________ $ ___________Shopping (clothing, gifts, souvenirs) $ ___________ $ ___________Number of people in party who spent or benefited from this money (overall) # ___________ # ___________

John A

John A

John A



7

Q31. On the most recent saltwater snorkeling or scuba diving day using a charter/party boat,approximately how much did your party spend on the following items in (county of interview):

Q31 Charter/Party

BoatCharter/party boat fee $ ___________Equipment rental $ ___________Air refills $ ___________Ice $ ___________Ramp fees $ ___________Marina fees $ ___________Lodging $ ___________Camping fees $ ___________Food and Beverages - Stores $ ___________Food and Beverages - restaurants/bars $ ___________Auto gas $ ___________Auto rental $ ___________Shopping (clothing, gifts, souvenirs) $ ___________Number of people in party who spent or benefited from this money # ___________

Now I would like to ask you a few questions about how you value both the artificial and natural reefs inSoutheast Florida.

CONTINGEN T VALU ATION QUESTIONS

Q32. Over the past 12 months, how many trips have you made to Southeast Florida on which you usedthe natural reefs?

______________ (# trips)

Q33. Over the past 12 months, how many trips have you made to Southeast Florida on which you usedthe artificial reefs?

______________ (# trips)

Ask Q31 if they participated in snorkeling or scuba diving froam a charter/party boat (activities 100,200)

John A



8

Hand respondent BLUE CARD.

Could you take a minute and read the information in Section 1 on the BLUE CARD about the plans.

Now I would like to ask you only about a plan to maintain the health and condition of the natural reefsin Southeast Florida.

34. First, consider your total trip costs for your last trip to use the natural reefs of Southeast Florida,including travel expenses, hotel and campsites fees, food and drink, and all other expenses. If yourtotal costs for this trip would have been $_____ higher, would you have been willing to pay thisamount to maintain the natural reefs ?

Please keep in mind that the added costs would have been used to make sure the water quality and healthof the natural reefs would have been maintained in their current condition. Also, keep in mind thatinstead of using the natural reefs in Southeast Florida, you could have used the artificial reefs, gone toplaces other than Southeast Florida or spent this money on other things.


35. Please refer to Section 2 on the BLUE CARD and indicate the letter that best describes yourreason for saying no, don’t know or refusing. Write-in any other reason.

(circle): A B C D E F G H _______________________

Now we would like to evaluate the artificial reef plan.

36. Considering your total trip costs for your last trip to use the artificial reefs in Southeast Florida,including travel expenses, hotel and campsites fees, food and drink, and all other expenses. If yourtotal costs for this trip would have been $_____ higher, would you have been willing to pay thatamount to maintain the artificial reefs ?

Please keep in mind that the added costs would have been used to make sure the water quality and healthof the fish and sea life on the artificial reefs would have been maintained in their current condition.Also, keep in mind that instead of using the artificial reefs of Southeast Florida, you could have used thenatural reefs, gone to places other than Southeast Florida or spent this money on other things.





9

(circle): A B C D E F G H ______________________

38. Suppose that both of the above plans to maintain the natural and artificial reefs in Southeast Floridawere put together in a combined program. Consider once again your total trip costs for your last tripto use the reefs in Southeast Florida including travel expenses, lodging, and all boating expenses. Ifyour total costs for this trip would have been $ ____ higher, would you have been willing to pay thisamount to maintain the artificial and natural reefs ?



(circle): A B C D E F G H _____________________

Could you take a minute and read Section 5 of the blue Card on the Artificial Reef Program for NewReefs.

40. Would you be willing to pay $ ____ per year when you renew your boat registration and/or thatamount in higher fees to charter/party boat or rental boat operations to fund this program ? Theamount paid would go to fund new artificial reefs in Southeast Florida.

Please keep in mind that this amount would be in addition to the costs above for maintaining the currentartificial reefs and protecting the water quality. Also, keep in mind that instead of using the artificialreefs in Southeast Florida, you could have used the natural reefs, gone to places other than SoutheastFlorida or spent this money on other things.

___ YES (Go to Question 42) ___ Don’t Know (Got to Question 41)___ NO (Go to Question 41) ___ Refused (Go to Question 41)

41. Please refer to Section 6 on the BLUE CARD and read me the letter that best describes your reasonfor saying no, don’t know or refusing.

(circle): A B C D E F G H _______________________

Q42. How long have you been boating in South Florida? _____________# years

Q43. a) Do you own your own boat?

YES Go to Q43b NO Go to Q44



10

Q43. b) What is the length of your boat? _________ feet.

Q43. c) Where is it registered?

_____________ _____________ County State

Q44. Are you a member of a fishing or diving club?

YES NO


Q46. Sex: Male Female (Observed, not asked)


YES NO

Q48. Please refer to section 4 of the Yellow Card and tell me which category best describes you?Please read the letter of the category.

Circle A White D Native Hawaiian or Pacific IslanderB Black or African American E AsianC American Indian or F Other (specify) ________________

Alaska Native

Q49. Please refer to section 5 of the Yellow Card and tell me which income category best describesyour annual household income last year, before taxes. Please give me the letter on the card thatcorresponds to the category.


Refused

Don’t know

o



11

This concludes your interview Thank you for your time..

Q50. a) During this trip to (county of interview), were you giving up any income earning activi-ties?

YES NO

Q55. b) How much income, before taxes, do you estimate you lostduring this trip to (county of interview)? $of $_____________

General Visitors Survey

OMB Approval #: 0648-0410

Expiration Date: 7/31/2003

Screener/Talley SheetInterviewer: ______________________

Interviewer Location (circle county): Palm Beach Broward Dade Monroe

1. Are you a permanent resident of (County of interview)?

YES. Thank you. We are only interviewingnon-residents of (county of interview). (Place tic mark in column 4)

NO. 2. Are you ending your trip to (county of interview) today?

NOTE: If the person is a scuba diver or is leaving before noon thenext day, proceed with the interview

NO. Thank you. (Place tic mark in column 5)

NO. Thank you. (Place tic mark in column 6)

YES. Go to Questionnair (Place tic mark in column 8)e

NOTE: If language Barrier, place tic mark in column 7

YES. Will you participate in a short 5-15 minute interview about yourvisit to (county of interview)?

87654321

SITE DATETIME

PERIODPERMANENT

RESIDENT

NON-EXIT VISITOROR AIRPORT

LAYOVER REFUSALLANGUAGEBARRIER INTERVIEWED


OMB Approval #:0648-0410Expiration Date7/31/2003

1

1. a) How many people are here with you on your visit to (county of interview) (do not include_____________

# people

1. b) How many of these people are not permanent residents of (county of interview)_____________

# people



__________________________ _________________ ___________ _____________ City or nearest city County State Zipcode

Country: ___________________________

Screening Criteria: 1) NOT a resident of county of interview.2) Meets exit condition

County of Interview: ___________________________

Onsite survey number: _________


________ __________ _______ Month Day Time

4. a) On this trip to (county of interview), when did you first arrive?________ __________ _______

Month Day Time

b) On this trip to (county of interview), when do you plan to leave?________ __________ _______

Month Day Time

5. Including this trip, how many times have you visited (county of interview) in the last 12 months -that is, since (date last year)?

_____________# times




John A

John A

John A



2


_____________# days



8. On this trip, how many nights will you have spent in (county of interview)?

_____________# nights

9. Look at Section 1 of the Green Card. How did you and those in your group who are not permanentresidents of (county of interview) get to (county of interview)? Please give the letters of all thatapply. (Circle all that apply)



10. Where are you staying or did you stay on this trip to (county of interview)? Please read me thenumber from Section two of the Green Card.


Please refer to the White Card with the Activities List.

11. Over the last 12 months, did you or someone in your current group who is not a resident of (countyof interview) engage in any kind of saltwater boating when visiting (county of interview)?

YES Go to Q12. NO Go to Q15.



3

HAND RESPONDENT WHITE CARD WITHACTIVITIES LIST

I would now like to ask you about some of the activities inwhich you, or someone in your group, participated inwhile on your visits to (county of interview).

Q12. In which of these activities did you or someone inyour group participate during the last 12 months?

Q13. As I read each activity in which you said you orsomeone in your group participated, could you tell mewhich activity YOU participated in during the past 12months? If the person is alone, skip to Q15.

Q14. Now as I read each activity would you tell me howmany others in your group who are not residents of(county of interview) participated in the activity in(county of interview) during the past 12 months?

Q15. Please refer to Section 3 on your green card and tell me which reason best describes yourprimary purpose of your trip to (county of interview). Please read the letter from the greencard.

A Recreation or vacationB Visit family or friendsC Business tripD Business and pleasureE Other (specific) __________________

Act i v i t y Resp # OthersLast 12 months



4

Now I would like to ask you about your trip expenses. Please provide your best estimate of the total foreach category for your party for this trip. Include only the amounts spent in this county.

Q16 ____________ Lodging accommodations

Q17 ____________ Food & beverage at restaurants/bars

Q18 ____________ Food & beverage at grocery/convenient stores

Q19 ____________ Sport activities including charter/party/guide fees, boat ramp/marine fees,tackle and bait fees

Q20 ____________ Admission to events and attractions

Q21 ____________ Evening entertainment

Q22 ____________ Rental car, taxi, bus fares

Q23 ____________ Shopping (clothing, gifts, souvenirs)

Q24 ____________ All other

Q25 How many people in your party spent or benefited from these expenditure? ____________# of People

Finally, for statistical purposes, we need to know a few things about you.


Q27. Sex: Male _____ Female _______ (Observed, not asked)


YES NO

Q29. Please refer to Section 4 of the green card and tell me which category best describes you.

A WhiteB Black or African AmericanC American Indian or Alaska NativeD Native Hawaiian or other Pacific IslanderE AsianF Other

John A

John A

John A

John A



5


Refused

Don’t know

o

Q30. Please refer to section 5 of the green card and tell me which income category best describes yourannual household income last year before taxes. Please give me the letter on the cardcorresoponding to the amount that is the closest to your annual household income.

That’s it. Thank you very much for participating in this survey. I hope you enjoyed your stay.

GREEN CARD

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT

Your participation is voluntary. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is requiredto respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection ofinformation subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless the collection ofinformation displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Since each interviewed person will represent many others not interviewed, your cooperation isextremely important. This study is being conducted by Hazen & Sawyer and the Florida StateUniversity for the State of Florida, Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties and theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Uses of the information include evaluation ofpresent recreation uses and planning for future recreation visitation. At the end of the study anymaterials identifying you such as name, address or telephone number will be destroyed. All otherinformation will be available for distribution. The interview should take 5 to 15 minutes with anaverage of 10 minutes.

Section 1. Modes of Transportation

A = Automobile – private H = Air – MarathonB = Automobile – rental I = Air – Key WestC = Air – Miami J = Air – Other FloridaD = Air – Ft. Lauderdale/ Specify _____________

Hollywood K = Cruise ShipE = Air – West Palm Beach L = Own boatF = Air – Tampa M = OtherG = Air – Orlando Specify _____________

Section 2. Overnight Accommodations

1 = Hotel/Motel/Guest House/ 4 = Condominium or Second Home (own),Bed & Breakfast excluding time shares

2 = Home of family/friends 5 = Vacation Rental3 = Campground 6 = Time Share

Section 3. Primary Purpose of Trip

A = Recreation or Vacation D = Business and PleasureB = Visit family or friends E = Other (Specific)C = Business trip

Section 4. Race/Ethnicity

A. WhiteB. Black or African AmericanC. American Indian or Alaska NativeD. AsianE. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific IslanderF. Other

---OVER----

GREEN CARD

Section 5. Annual Household Income before Taxes

Please give only the letter of your income category.

A Less than $5,000 I $40,000 to $44,999B $5,000 to $9,999 J $45,000 to $49,999C $10,000 to $14,999 K $50,000 to $59,999D $15,000 to $19,999 L $60,000 to $74,999E $20,000 to $24,999 M $75,000 to $99,999F $25,000 to $29,999 N $100,000 to $149,999G $30,000 to $34,999 O $150,000 or moreH $35,000 to $39,999

Appendix Table C-1 Visitor Boater Survey Site Count

Number of Surveys Completed at Each Site - By County

Site Code MONROE County SitesNumber of

Surveys3 Blank 15

50 America Outdoors 151 Anne's Beach 1252 Atlantic Shores Resort 153 Bahia Honda Beach & State Park 4854 Banana Bay Resort - Marathon 6655 Banana Bay Resort - Key West 3157 Calusa Beach, Campground & Resort 48

58Boyd's Campground/Captain John's Greyhound - Boat Harbor

11

59 Charter Boat Row - Key West 760 Cobra Marina 361 Crane Point Hammock Museum 1864 Curry Mansion Inn 965 Denny's 166 Estes Motors/Estes Marine 267 Exxon at MM 101 168 Exxon at Rock Harbor 169 Fairfield Inn - Key West 4270 Fiesta Key - Campground & KOA Site 9871 Fort Zachary Taylor State Park 4372 Galleon Marina/Reef Raiders 1873 Garden Cove Marina 274 Glass Bottom Boats 175 Hampton Inn - Key West 3976 Harry Harris State Park 1677 Hemingway House 678 Holiday Inn - Key Largo 979 Holiday Isle/Holiday Inn Dock 380 Italian Marina 181 John Pennekamp State Park 14482 Key Largo Harbor 183 Key West Airport 7584 Key West Bight 5

85City of Key West Boat Harbor - Marina, Charter Row, Garrison Bight & Captain John's Greyhound

82

86 Key West Diving Society - Stock Island 7

R:\40289\Responses\Databasetobob\CurrentfromACCESS\SumrWinr_VisBoat_ALLCounty-Sites.xls Page 1 of 6 Summary-MON




Surveys87 Knights Key - Campground 5988 KOA Campground 1

89 Land's End Village Boat Harbor & Marina - Key West 17

90 Largo Harbor 291 Largo Lodge 292 Little Duck Key & LDK Beach 493 Long Key State Park & Campground 6994 Marriott Key Largo 195 Matecumbe Beach 496 Miami Sub Parking Lot 197 Monroe 198 Ocean Divers 299 Parmer's Resort Marina 58

100 Quay Restaurant 4101 Ramp on the street 4102 Roadside Park 1103 Rock Harbor Marina 4104 Rowell's Marina 6105 Shell Gas Station 2106 Sombrero Beach 99107 Southernmost South Beach - Key West 6108 Southernmost Resorts 6109 Sugar Loaf Key/KOA & Campground 12110 Sunshine Key Campground/RV Park & Resort 41111 Tavernier Creek Marina 6112 Veteran's Park/Veteran's Park Rest Area 8113 Weston Beach Resort 1114 Whale Harbor Marina 3131 Almost There (Stock Island) Charters 1132 Amber Jack Pier / Garrison Bight City Marina 6133 Atlantis Dive Center 43134 Big Pine Key Fish Camp/Big Pine Fishing Camp 8135 Camp Hammael 1136 Captain Hook's Dive Center/Marina 1138 Dive Key West 1140 Dolphin Research Center 6





Surveys141 Dolphin Resort 6142 Lion's Liar Travel Park 4143 Marathon Airport Marathon 1144 Marathon Lady 1145 Mel Fisher Museum 1146 Sheraton 2147 South Beach Motel 1148 Theater of the Sea 5149 Turtle Kraals 13150 Wild Bird Center 2

Total 1394


Appendix Table C-1 (Continued)Visitor Boater Survey Site Count


Site Code MIAMI-DADE County SitesNumber of

Surveys3 Blank 75 City of Boca Boat 4

10 Lake Park Marina 219 Bayside Marina 2120 Bayside Marketplace 122 Crandon Park Marina 2723 Dinner Key Marina 224 Haulover Beach 625 Haulover Marina 15426 Marriott Biscayne Bay Hotel 627 Matheson Hammock Marina 328 Miami International Airport 429 Miami Seaquarium 330 Monty's/Monte's Marina 231 Pelican Harbor Marina 2332 Sealine Marina 1

123 Biscayne National Park 58124 Haulover Dock 19125 Homestead Bayfront 7152 Black Point Marina 1153 Island View Park 2

Total 353

R:\40289\Responses\Databasetobob\NewfromACCESS\SumrWinr_VisBoat_ALLCounty-Sites.xls Page 1 of 6 Summary-MDC



Site Code BROWARD County SitesNumber of

Surveys3 Blank 7

33 15th Street Boatramp 1035 Broward/Broward Marina 1836 CB Smith Park 337 Cove Marina 638 Fort Lauderdale International Airport 939 Hillsboro Inlet Marina 2640 Holiday Inn 341 Holiday Inn Lauderdale-by-the-Sea 142 Hugh Taylor Birch State Park 143 Las Olas Riverfront 544 Marina 445 Ocean Walk - Hollywood Beach 146 Pro Dive 7047 Sand Harbor Hotel and Marina 4148 Seafair 6449 Blank 5

126 Helen's Drift Fishing 21127 IFGA 1128 John Lloyd 3129 Jungle Queen 1130 Lady go Diver 1154 Dry Martini 3

Total 304

R:\40289\Responses\Databasetobob\NewfromACCESS\SumrWinr_VisBoat_ALLCounty-Sites.xls Page 1 of 6 Summary-BRD



Site Code PALM BEACH County SitesNumber of

Surveys

1Jim Abernathy's/Jim Abernathy's Scuba Adventures (Multiple Locations)

100

2 Blue Heron Driftfishing 53 Blank 75 City of Boca Boat 26 Frenchman's Marina 37 Hilton 19 Jupiter Seasport marina 3

10 Lake Park Marina 211 New Port Cove Marine Center - Abernathy's 412 North Palm Beach Marina 613 Palm Beach Airport 3714 Phil Foster Park 1915 Riviera Beach Marina 14716 Sailfish Marina 3617 Sportsmans Marina - Lantana 218 Two Georges Marina - Boynton Beach 3

115 B-Love 7116 Boynton Beach Boat Club 3117 Dive Shop II 1118 Logger Head 2119 Seamist Marina 78120 Splashdown 4121 Sportsman Park - B-Love 7122 Starfish Enterprise 2151 Blue Heron/Blue Heron Marina 38156 Rampage Dive Center 9

Total 528

R:\40289\Responses\Databasetobob\NewfromACCESS\SumrWinr_VisBoat_ALLCounty-Sites.xls Page 1 of 6 Summary-PBC

OMB APPROVAL #: 0648-0410 EXPIRATION DATE: 7/31/2003

r:\40289\FinalInstrument\SFL_CHARTER_QUEST.doc 1

SOUTHEAST FLORIDA CHARTER/PARTY BOAT SURVEY

ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL REEF USE

We are conducting a study of the economic value of both artificial and natural reef use in the saltwater areas off the counties of Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe Count ies. The study is being funded through a partnership with the State of Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the four counties and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Separate surveys of residents and non-residents of each county are being conducted. However, for those people who use charter/party/guide boat services, we have found that they do not know whether they have fished (and sometimes whether they had dived) on artificial or natural reefs. As an experienced captain or guide that takes people out for fishing, diving or glass-bottom rides, we would like your assistance in more accurately estimating the proportion of use on artificial and natural reefs. The attached information sheet explains the authorities to collect this information, how the information will be used, a statement of burden (estimate of how much time it will take you to complete the survey), who to contact if you have any questions about the information collection, and your participation and protections of the confidentiality of your information. SECTION 1: KIND AND USE OF VESSEL/BOAT 1. How many vessels/boats do you own or operate to take out paying passengers?

_______ # boats

2. What is the length of each boat and how many passengers is each boat licensed to carry ? Length Number of Passengers Boat 1 ______ __________________ Boat 2 ______ __________________ Boat 3 ______ __________________ Boat 4 ______ __________________ 3. How would you classify your activity? Check the category that best describes your

operation. Charter = 6 or less passengers Party = more than six passengers __ Charter – Fish Only __ Party – Fish Only __ Charter – Dive Only __ Party – Dive Only __ Charter – Fish & Dive __ Party – Fish & Dive __ Glass-bottom boat __ Other (specify) ___________________



4. From what ports/cities and counties do you launch your boat (s)? If more than three, give the top three.

Port/City County 1. ___________________ ___________________ 2. ___________________ ___________________ 3. ___________________ ___________________

5. What percentage of your business is from residents of the county in which you mainly

operate ? _____ (%) Please provide your best estimate. SECTION 2: ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL REEF USE Here we need your best estimates of passenger-days, dives, and the proportion of your passenger days and dives that were spent on artificial reefs versus natural reefs versus no reefs for the latest year. Below we ask for the information by activity type (e.g., fishing, snorkeling, scuba diving, or glass-bottom boat rides) and by county (e.g., Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Monroe). For fishing and glass bottom boats, we need your best estimate of the number of passenger-days. A passenger-day is defined as one passenger fo r any part of a day (half day or whole day). For snorkeling and scuba diving, we need to know both passenger-days and the number of dives. For all activities, we need to know the percent of time spent on artificial reefs versus natural reefs versus not on reefs. The sum of the three percentages should sum to 100%. 6. Fishing Passenger-Days __ check here if you did NOT operate your business for Recreational Fishing in any of the four counties and go to question 7. Snorkeling Passenger-Days.

Percent of Passenger-Days

COUNTY Check if none

Total

Passenger-Days

On Artificial

Reefs

On Natural Reefs

Not on

Reefs Total

Palm Beach 100% Broward 100% Miami-Dade 100% Monroe 100%



7. Snorkeling Passenger-Days __ check here if you did NOT operate your business for Snorkeling in any of the four counties and go to question 9. Scuba Diving Passenger-Days.



Total

Passenger-Days

On Artificial

Reefs

On Natural Reefs

Not on

Reefs Total

Palm Beach 100% Broward 100% Miami-Dade 100% Monroe 100% 8. Snorkeling Dives __ check here if you did NOT operate your business for Snorkeling in any of the four counties and go to question 9. Scuba Diving Passenger-Days.

Percent of Dives


Total

Passenger-Days

On Artificial

Reefs

On Natural Reefs

Not on

Reefs Total

Palm Beach 100% Broward 100% Miami-Dade 100% Monroe 100% 9. Scuba Diving Passenger-Days __ check here if you did NOT operate your business for Scuba Diving in any of the four counties and go to question 11. Glass-Bottom Boat Rides.



Total

Passenger-Days

On Artificial

Reefs

On Natural Reefs

Not on

Reefs Total

Palm Beach 100% Broward 100% Miami-Dade 100% Monroe 100%



10. Scuba Diving – Dives __ check here if you did NOT operate your business for Scuba Diving in any of the four counties and go to question 11. Glass-Bottom Boat Rides.

Percent of Dives


Total

Passenger-Days

On Artificial

Reefs

On Natural Reefs

Not on

Reefs Total

Palm Beach 100% Broward 100% Miami-Dade 100% Monroe 100% 11. Glass-bottom Boat Rides - Passenger-Days __ check here if you did NOT operate your business for Glass-Bottom Boat Rides in any of the four counties and go to Section 3.



Total

Passenger-Days

On Artificial

Reefs

On Natural Reefs

Not on

Reefs Total

Palm Beach 100% Broward 100% Miami-Dade 100% Monroe 100% SECTION 3: FOR Monroe County/Florida Keys ONLY In July 1997, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary established 18 Sanctuary Preservation Areas (SPAs) and one Ecological Reserve (Sambos Ecological Reserve, Western Sambos or ER). These areas are available for non-consumptive activities (e.g., snorkeling, scuba diving and glass-bottom boat rides). Generally, these are “no take areas”, except there are a couple of exceptions for bait fishing by permit. Here, please tell us the amount of use that you gave above that occurs on the SPAs and the Sambos Ecological Reserve. A map is enclosed that shows the SPAs and the Sambos Ecological Reserve and the four regions of the Florida Keys.



12. Snorkeling – SPAs and ER ___ check here if no Snorkeling took place in the SPAs and the ER and go to question 13.

Total Passenger-Days

REGION

Check if none

Total Passenger-Dives

Upper Keys ____ __________ __________ Middle Keys ____ __________ __________ Lower Keys ____ __________ __________ Key West ____ __________ __________ 13. Scuba Diving – SPAs and ER ___ check here if no Scuba Diving took place in the SPAs and the ER and go to question 14.


REGION

Check if none


Upper Keys ____ __________ __________ Middle Keys ____ __________ __________ Lower Keys ____ __________ __________ Key West ____ __________ __________ 14. Glass-bottom Boat Rides – SPAs and ER ___ check here if no Glass-bottom Boat Rides took place in the SPAs and the ER and go to Section 4.


REGION

Check if none


Upper Keys ____ __________ __________ Middle Keys ____ __________ __________ Lower Keys ____ __________ __________ Key West ____ __________ __________



SECTION 4: IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION OF REEFS For the following questions, would you please use the following 1-5 rating scales: IMPORTANCE Not at all Not Very Somewhat Very Important Important Important Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 SATISFACTION Not at all Not Very Somewhat Very Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 15. How important are the counties’ artificial reef programs to your business?

__________ (Rating 1-5) 16. How satisfied are you with the counties’ artificial reef program?

__________ (Rating 1-5) 17. How important are the natural reefs off South Florida to your business?

__________ (Rating 1-5) 18. How satisfied are you with the natural reefs off South Florida?

__________ (Rating 1-5) 19. How important are the Sanctuary Preservation Areas and the Ecological Reserve in the

Florida Keys to your business? __________ (Rating 1-5) 20. How satisfied are you with the Sanctuary Preservation Areas and the Ecological Reserve in

the Florida Keys? __________ (Rating 1-5)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION

Please place your completed forms in the self-addressed envelope and mail.

If you have lost your self-addressed envelope, please mail to:

Grace Johns Hazen and Sawyer

4000 Hollywood Boulevard, Ste. 750 N Hollywood, Florida 33021

If you have any questions, please call Grace Johns at (954) 987-0066 or (954) 462-2709 or

(305) 625-4101.

40289z-02.cdr

Florida Keys National Marine SanctuarySanctuary Preservation Areas and Ecological Reserves

Carysfort/SouthCarysfortReefTheElbow

DryRocksGrecianRocks

FrenchReef

HenandChickens

CheecaRocks

NewfoundHarborKey

WesternSambos

SandKey

RockKey

EasternDryRocks

AlligatorReef

CoffinsPatch

SombreroKey

LooeKey

DavisReef

ConchReefMolassesReef

SPAsandERs

Sanctuaryboundary

Date post:	03-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

Socioeconomic Study

Documents